ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Employment Law

Julian Smith: What contribution his Department has made to the cross-government review of employment law.

Iain Duncan Smith: As part of the cross-government review of employment-related law we have implemented a number of easements for employers’ automatic enrolment following independent review, which will save small employers about £90 million a year, including increasing the earnings level at which automatic enrolment applies, introducing a simpler way for employers to check their existing pension schemes meet the required standards and introducing an optional waiting period of up to three months.

Julian Smith: The Secretary of State’s Department is responsible for a huge amount of employment law. May I urge him to work closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on its review to ensure that the Government make a cross-departmental effort to free small businesses up to take on staff?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend definitely may. We are working closely with BIS in all it tries to do and my Department is doing quite a lot to help small employers. We listened carefully on auto-enrolment, we made a change to give a little more time and that helped small businesses enormously.

Defined-benefit Pension Schemes

Richard Graham: What steps he is taking to address incentivised transfers out of defined-benefit pension schemes.

Steve Webb: We recognise that employers need some flexibility to manage their scheme liabilities and that well-managed transfer exercises can be a useful tool, but we are concerned about scheme members being offered cash inducements to encourage them to take a transfer that might not be in their best interests. We
	have discussed the issue with a number of industry groups and we are actively looking to see what action needs to be taken to combat any bad practice.

Richard Graham: As the Minister knows, I support him on the principle that enhanced transfers do not necessarily advantage many members of pension schemes. What does he think about the other side of the equation, however? In my constituency of Gloucester, we have at least a dozen very successful family-owned manufacturing firms whose ability to grow is impeded by the residual liabilities of their closed DB schemes. How does the Minister think we can balance our responsibilities to members of the scheme with the desire to help such companies grow?

Steve Webb: I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, when we discussed pension issues with local employers. The important consideration is fairness, as he says. We have no problem with people transferring out of such schemes in a fair exchange, but because these are complex and difficult financial transactions we must ensure that people have the proper advice and information on which to make such choices.

Kelvin Hopkins: The reality is that most occupational schemes are disappearing, private pension schemes are often not good value and are subject to stock-market vagaries, and millions of people will not be in any kind of pension scheme in the future. Is not the real long-term solution a compulsory state earnings-related pension scheme for everyone?

Steve Webb: We believe that both the state and the private sector have an important part to play. We have published Green Paper proposals for state pension reform that would provide a firmer foundation, perhaps of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We also believe that many people could be in decent-quality workplace provision with an employer contribution and that is why we will begin auto-enrolment as planned next year.

Work Programme

Karl McCartney: What recent progress he has made on delivering the Work programme.

Jeremy Lefroy: What recent progress he has made on delivering the Work programme.

Chris Grayling: The Department for Work and Pensions completed the launch of the Work programme by the end of June and it is now operational in all parts of the country. I have now visited a number of the providers and their centres and I am pleased to see the progress they are making.

Karl McCartney: I welcome the Government’s measures to help unemployed people in my Lincoln constituency, but what assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that the work programme will provide my constituents with sustainable, meaningful and long-term employment?

Chris Grayling: There are two things about the Work programme that will help my hon. Friend and his constituents. First, the providers are free to deliver whatever solution works for the individuals—a crucial difference to past programmes—and, secondly, they are rewarded not simply for getting people into work but for sustaining them in work for periods that can be as long as two years and three months. I hope that will deal with the challenges in the labour market in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Jeremy Lefroy: On Friday, we welcomed the Minister to the Stafford jobs fair and the Shaw Trust in the Stafford constituency. How extensive is the role he foresees for the voluntary sector in providing the Work programme?

Chris Grayling: The voluntary sector has a crucial role to play in two ways. First, we have a wide range of voluntary sector organisations contractually involved in the Work programme, delivering support to the long-term unemployed. I also believe that a local community activity such as the excellent jobs fair that my hon. Friend organised in his constituency, together with Stafford Works, is an ideal example of how Work programme providers and the local community can work together to deliver real back-to-work support for the unemployed.

Anne Begg: Early indications would suggest that the numbers being referred to the Work programme are much higher than many of the providers expected under the contracts they signed. What guarantee does the Minister have that people will not sit on the Work programme without any intervention for some time until the providers gear up to have the staff to deal with the numbers they face?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a marked contrast to the start of the flexible new deal under the previous Government when providers went for weeks and weeks without people being referred. I am very encouraged by the start of the Work programme and by the response of providers, which are contractually obliged to provide minimum levels of support to people who are referred. As far as I can see, that is precisely what is happening: support is starting and is working well. There are courses, support and learning taking place up and down the country.

Frank Field: Should we hold out much hope for the Government’s Work programme if the Government are not successful in meeting their immigration target?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of migrant labour on many occasions. It is a challenge for Work programme providers to make sure they can deliver a work-ready work force to potential employers in areas such as his constituency to take advantage of the excellent opportunities that exist in companies such as the Contact Company, for example, which I visited recently. I strongly believe that if providers get local workers ready for the work force, they will be taken up eagerly by local employers.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of getting people back into work is through apprenticeships? Will he ensure that the Work programme is linked carefully into the Government’s apprenticeships scheme?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree. One of the most important steps the Government have taken has been significantly to increase the number of apprenticeships available, particularly for young people. It is absolutely clear under the Work programme agreement that a successful placement in an apprenticeship counts as a job outcome under the Work programme. I hope that will mean there is a clear link between the two.

Barbara Keeley: Steve Kerr of the London Voluntary Service Council has questioned whether the Work programme
	“will succeed…or simply make matters worse through sidelining the voluntary sector.”
	What action is the Minister taking so that the voluntary sector does not continue to feel sidelined through the Work programme?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady is absolutely wrong. The voluntary sector is not being sidelined. On Friday in Stafford I visited the Shaw Trust—a major voluntary sector organisation that is already delivering support to people under the Work programme. There are many other organisations such as Groundwork delivering support right across the spectrum and there is specialist help available from some of the specialist groups. The Work programme has been designed to attract best practice, of which there is much in the voluntary sector. That is why it is such an important part of the Work programme.

Employment (Disabled People)

Stuart Andrew: What recent steps he has taken to increase employment opportunities for disabled people.

Mark Lancaster: What recent steps he has taken to increase employment opportunities for disabled people.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent steps he has taken to increase employment opportunities for disabled people.

Maria Miller: The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same opportunities as everybody else to reach their potential in work. The Work programme, Jobcentre Plus, Work Choice and Access to Work provide a range of support to do that. I announced on Monday 11 July the Government’s response to Liz Sayce’s review of specialist disability employment programmes. We have a consultation running until 17 October and I urge everybody to participate in it.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the budget for specialist disability employment is being protected and that it will be spent more wisely than it was in the past?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that very good question and I can confirm to him absolutely that the budget is being protected. I also urge him to look at Liz Sayce’s report, which suggests that perhaps 35,000 additional disabled people could be supported into work from the same budget. That is something we would like to consult on and look at some more.

Mark Lancaster: I am sure that the Minister will join me in commending the work of the Spinal Injuries Association in Milton Keynes. Indeed, she might like to visit it the next time she is passing by, as a visit there would show that many of its employees are disabled. It gives a clear example of how tailored work programmes are the best way of getting disabled people back into work. Is that an approach that the Government will pursue?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to such good work in his constituency. I shall certainly consider trying to visit if I am able to. He is absolutely right that we should focus on the individual rather than on the institution—that is a common theme coming out of the Sayce review.

Eric Ollerenshaw: May I ask the Minister something that the disabled in my constituency ask me? Once the disabled have got jobs, what support and advice will there be for employers so that they can maintain the disabled in those jobs?

Maria Miller: We already have in place Access to Work, which provides just the sort of support that my hon. Friend is talking about, but all too often that support is, perhaps, focused on the job rather than on the individual. One of the reforms that the Sayce review is talking about is how we can make sure that Access to Work is focused on the individual and not just on particular jobs. In some instances, however, employers are involved in co-funding, so this issue needs to be looked at with care. We are looking at it in our consultation.

Paul Goggins: On Thursday I will be visiting the Remploy factory in my constituency and meeting some of the 20 staff who work there. Over the past year they have invested in new equipment and through hard work have won new business. What does the Minister suggest I say to them?

Maria Miller: It is excellent that the right hon. Gentleman is visiting his factory and showing staff support, as he clearly is. As he knows, we are consulting, through the Sayce review, about the future of Remploy. We want to make sure that Remploy factories are successful in the future. At present every single one is loss-making, and half the employees in Remploy across the board—I am not sure of the position in his constituency—do not have work to do. That is not an acceptable situation. We need to look for ways of remedying a situation that we inherited and through the Sayce consultation we hope to do that.

Ann Clwyd: Is it not unfortunate that the future of Remploy is once again in the melting pot? May I remind the Minister—we had a conversation about this—that in 2008, the last time people went through voluntary redundancy in Remploy, only a quarter
	of those made redundant got new jobs? In my own Remploy factory in Aberdare, only one person is at work. Surely it is better to keep disabled people in work, doing jobs that they have done satisfactorily for a long time?

Maria Miller: We have indeed had some important conversations about the matter. It is not for me to answer for the record of the previous Government, although I point out to the right hon. Lady that 40% of disabled people who left through the 2008 redundancy scheme retired. The figures that she quotes need to reflect that. I can assure her that we will do everything we can to make sure that people affected by any changes in the future are given the support that they need.

Nigel Dodds: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland about some of the excellent initiatives that it is undertaking, particularly in relation to young people coming out of school and college?

Maria Miller: We have many conversations with the devolved Administrations. I cannot recall anything about that subject particularly, but I will pick that up later.

Child Support Agency

Jake Berry: What steps he is taking to prevent disagreements between parents in their dealings with the Child Support Agency.

Maria Miller: The current child support schemes can entrench conflict and they do not encourage parents to work together in the best interests of their children. We are taking steps to draw on a range of support to help parents collaborate to reach family-based arrangements for child maintenance wherever possible, which we believe will help the ongoing involvement of both parents in a child’s life after separation.

Jake Berry: People in Rossendale and Darwen who deal with the CSA tell me that they find that the CSA’s approach creates trouble in what is already a strained relationship. Will the Minister please update the House about the practical steps that are to be taken to introduce a more conciliatory approach?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is getting to the heart of the reform that we are looking to put in place under the future scheme, which is to make sure that parents such as his constituents get the right support up front from specialist organisations that can help them with their parental relationship post-separation. There is a growing body of evidence to show that that is one of the main determinants of whether people have an effective child maintenance regime in place after separation.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Minister believe that £30 million over four years over the whole of England will be sufficient to achieve her aims? That is the £30 million from the Department for Education which is for all sorts of relationship counselling, not just in relation to the Child Support Agency?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is right: finances are tough, but she is well aware of the situation that we inherited. The Department for Education is not the only Department to invest in parental relationship support. The Department for Work and Pensions already invests well over £5 million a year in the options service, which does an excellent job, as far as it goes at present, in providing some of the support that I would like to see augmented in the future.

Jennifer Willott: Some parents with care had spent years trying to get money out of absent ex-partners with no success before the CSA imposed a deductions of earnings order. The Government propose to close all existing cases when the new scheme is up and running, including those with deduction of earnings orders in place. Although I welcome the Government’s emphasis on parents working together to solve problems, can the Minister reassure me that where there is a long history of non-payment, cases will not be closed and families left with no money at all?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is just the sort of detail we are working through. It is absolutely our intention to ensure that transitional arrangement are in place to help parents in the situation she describes to have continuing payments into the future, and I am certainly making that a priority.

Disability Living Allowance

Thomas Docherty: What the terms of reference are of his review of the mobility component of disability living allowance.

Maria Miller: We have announced that we would not remove the DLA mobility component from people in residential care from October 2012 and would consider the issue as part of our wider reform to introduce the personal independence payment. It is only right that we consider carefully the needs of this particular group to understand their current circumstances before we come to any final decision on how best to address their needs in future.

Thomas Docherty: If that is the case, perhaps the Minister can explain why these savings still appear to be in the Chancellor’s Red Book. Has she discussed the matter with her colleagues in the Treasury?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman has probably raised this matter with me before. The Red Book reflects the current position, which is that support for care home residents is being reviewed alongside the broader reform of DLA. The figures in the Red Book make it clear that those savings will be made as part of the Government’s overall reform of the programme, which is very consistent with what I have said, and will be part of the reform of PIP.

Margaret Curran: I take it from the Minister’s answer to the previous question that the loss of £160 million for disabled people will continue. I draw to her attention the launch today of an independent review of the mobility component of disability living
	allowance, led by Lord Low of Dalston CBE and overseen by the charities Leonard Cheshire Disability and Mencap. It has been launched because they have lost confidence in the Government’s review. Unlike the Government’s review, the Low review includes clear terms of reference, calls for evidence and representations from disabled people themselves. If the Minister is sure of her ground on this matter, and in the interests of transparency, will she commit today to participating in the Low review?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her question—I think. The deficit does not go away, and I think she needs to remember that. We have to ensure that we have sufficient money to have a sustainable disability living allowance or personal independence payment into the future, and I look forward to working with her on ways of achieving that. With regard to the additional evidence that will be put forward as part of the Low review, I obviously welcome any additional information that will help us, along with the 5,500 submissions we have received as part of the DLA consultation. This is a really important issue and I am glad that the hon. Lady is getting involved in finding the right solution, because obviously that is important for us all.

Employment and Support Allowance

Duncan Hames: What plans he has to issue guidance to prospective applicants on the evidence required from them to receive employment and support allowance.

Chris Grayling: ESA claims are normally made by phone. A statement is then sent to the claimant setting out any additional evidence necessary to support the claim. If claims are made using a clerical form, notes are provided about evidence that may be required. There are no current plans to issue further guidance, but this is constantly kept under review.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for that answer and am pleased to know that this is under review. Answers to my written parliamentary questions show that in Chippenham nearly half of all unsuccessful applicants who appeal win their cases at tribunal, in some cases by presenting evidence that they did not know they were to produce when they first made their application. Does the Minister recognise that these successful appeals are a costly process that do not represent value for money for the taxpayer and cause unnecessary heartache and hardship for the people concerned?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and want to see fewer cases going to appeal. This is one reason why we have stepped up the reconsideration process in Jobcentre Plus, so after the initial decision is made we actively seek out further evidence, if such evidence exists, and use it to reconsider our decision. I hope and expect to see the number of successful appeals reduce significantly as a result.

Karen Buck: Local Jobcentre Plus officials have advised me that there is already a significant delay in the work capability assessment
	test in my local area because the assessments are taking around twice as long as was originally predicted. Can the Minister reassure the House that this is not the situation across the whole country and that there is no backlog in the work capability assessments, with all that that would imply for claimants and for the service?

Chris Grayling: We have remained on schedule to start the process for individuals. It is not the case that assessments are taking twice as long. There is an early element of bedding in for the personalised statement, as was recommended by Professor Harrington, but we are not aware of any long-term factors that would change the timetable for the whole reconsideration process.

Work Programme

Michael Crockart: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of user groups in assisting people with disabilities to obtain work through the Work Programme.

Chris Grayling: I regard the role of specialist organisations and specialist user groups as extremely important for the delivery of the Work programme. They, above all others involved, will be able to provide the specialist support that individuals with particularly serious challenges in their lives face in trying to get into the workplace.

Michael Crockart: I thank the Minister for his answer. However, given that only 230 disabled people secured work through residential training colleges last year, at an average cost of £78,000 per person, will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the recommendations as set out in last week’s Sayce review on allowing such colleges to develop as centres of excellence and to adapt their provision to operate directly in provider markets—for instance, as subcontractors in the Work programme?

Chris Grayling: We are considering the Sayce recommendations and have not yet formally responded about our decisions on whether to adopt most of them. However, my hon. Friend makes a sensible point. I have visited the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for Disabled People near my constituency in Surrey, where I said to people that I would encourage them to look to see whether they can enter the Work programme to provide specialist support as subcontractors. I hope that all the colleges will consider taking such an approach.

Departmental Jobs (Relocation)

Chi Onwurah: Whether key suppliers to his Department are required to consult him on any planned relocation of jobs abroad.

Chris Grayling: Let me start by saying that we will not offshore any DWP jobs. I share the hon. Lady’s concerns regarding work being done offshore by suppliers. Many of the Department’s subcontractors began using some offshore staff under the previous Government. The
	Department is exploring how future offshoring can be minimised and whether jobs currently offshored could potentially be moved back to the UK in future.

Chi Onwurah: I welcome the Minister’s reply. As he no doubt knows, the north-east has some of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Hewlett Packard’s decision to offshore jobs in Newcastle supplying his Department with IT will not help matters. Santander recently announced that it is bringing all its call centres back to the UK following pressure from customers. As Hewlett Packard’s customer, what concrete steps is the Minister taking to achieve the same result?

Chris Grayling: I have already had a meeting with Hewlett Packard to discuss the issue, and I expect to have another such meeting shortly. The hon. Lady refers to call centres. All the Department’s call centres are sited in the UK. We have the biggest virtual contact centre in Europe, and it is very good, I believe; I applaud the professionalism of the staff who work in it. I would expect to see many similar offshore centres return to the UK in future, because, in my view, British-based staff are the best contact centre staff.

Child Care (Universal Credit)

Jessica Morden: When he plans to publish proposals for supporting childcare through universal credit.

Iain Duncan Smith: I made a commitment to provide more detail during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill and am still on track to do so in time for its scrutiny in the Lords. We are considering the advice and suggestions raised in productive discussions held with MPs, peers and lobby groups, along with recent written responses submitted by attendees. It is going very well and we are learning a lot from those responses.

Jessica Morden: Will the Minister guarantee that the Government’s stated aim that universal credit will always pay will be in place for all families where child care costs are taken into account?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is absolutely our intention. That is why we are listening carefully to what people have proposed. The whole point about child care is that it should be there to support particularly women going into work who have caring responsibilities. We are reviewing this to make sure that that continues to be the case under universal credit. That is the whole point about the consultation. In other words, where we may be wrong, we can get that corrected and make sure that we come forward with a really good package in time for the debates in the other place.

Stephen Timms: What is now the Government’s policy on the benefit cap in universal credit? The Secretary of State has told us that the policy is not changing, but press reports from Liberal Democrat sources contradict that by saying that the issue is far from settled and that the cap might not apply to existing benefit recipients. Then, last week, the Minister with responsibility for employment confirmed in a letter to
	me that “easements” are indeed being considered for existing recipients. So was the Secretary of State mistaken, and is the policy changing or not?

Iain Duncan Smith: The policy is not changing. The right hon. Gentleman should have written to me and my colleague at the same time, and we would both have given exactly the same answer. We have always said that in the course of the cap, we will look at any difficult cases. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We have always said that. One would always do that in a transition, just as we are doing with housing benefit. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the cap will come in at a gross level of £35,000 a year. I would very much like to know what their position is on the cap, because so far we have heard absolutely nothing about whether they support it or are opposed to it. Perhaps they will tell us now. Most people out there are in favour of it.

Personal Independence Payment

Peter Aldous: Whether the mobility component of the personal independence payment will be available to people living in residential care.

Maria Miller: We are reviewing the existing evidence and gathering more to determine the extent to which there are overlaps in provision for the mobility needs of people in residential care homes. The work is continuing and we will make a final decision on the way forward when it is complete.

Peter Aldous: For the residents of Shaftesbury Court in Lowestoft in my constituency, the mobility component plays an important role in enabling them to lead active lives in the local community. Can the Minister confirm that the PIP will be sufficiently well designed and funded so that that can continue?

Maria Miller: I note my hon. Friend’s assiduous support for his constituents in Shaftesbury Court. He also raised this issue on Third Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill. I reassure him that we will consider the needs of people who are in receipt of DLA as we move forward with PIP, regardless of their place of residence. We are doing a great deal of work to ensure that there is sufficient support so that people get the mobility that they require.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister realise that in the good society—I do not know about the big society—we care about the disability mobility component? It would destroy people’s lives, including the lives of people in the Leonard Cheshire home in Huddersfield, if it was taken away, because the ability to get out and see something of real life is an essential quality of the good life and the good society.

Maria Miller: That is why, as we announced, we are not removing the mobility component from DLA in October 2012. We will ensure that people who live in care homes get sufficient support under PIP.

Pat Glass: I recently met constituents in my local Leonard Cheshire home in Crook who are very concerned about losing the mobility element of DLA. The Minister subsequently wrote to my local newspaper, The Northern Echo, advising that those people were wrong to worry about this and that they would not lose it. Is that the Government’s position or is it subject to the review? Are the Government just not sure yet?

Maria Miller: I, too, have visited Leonard Cheshire homes, and I have met Leonard Cheshire representatives to discuss this issue. I assure the hon. Lady, as I just said to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), that we are not removing the DLA mobility component in October 2012. We will look at the needs of care home residents alongside the needs of all other recipients of DLA as part of the broader PIP reform. Perhaps she can take that message back to her constituents. It would be great to get some good information out there.

Young People (Employment Support)

Brandon Lewis: What steps he is taking to support young people into work.

Chris Grayling: We are doing three things to help young people into work. Our work experience scheme will provide an opportunity for up to 100,000 young people to get their first taste of the workplace over the next two years. We have launched tens of thousands of new apprenticeships that are designed to build a career for young people. Through the Work programme, we are providing specialist back-to-work support for those who are struggling to get into work, the longer-term unemployed and those who come from the most challenging backgrounds.

Brandon Lewis: In an area like Great Yarmouth, which has above average unemployment and in some cases third generation unemployment, those projects are hugely important in getting young people back into work. To help promote the opportunities for businesses, will the Minister outline how many people have undertaken and will undertake work experience this year?

Chris Grayling: The latest figures show that at the end of the first quarter, give or take, about 10,000 young people had so far benefited from our work experience scheme. Employers have so far committed to provide about 35,000 places. I am very optimistic that the scheme will deliver real opportunities for young people, some of whom have started to get into work through the placements.

Julie Hilling: Unemployment in the ’80s and ’90s was devastating for young people and gave us a generation with no jobs, no hope and no future. Has the Minister evaluated how much long periods of unemployment for a young person cost the UK economy?

Chris Grayling: There is no doubt that long periods of unemployment for young people are damaging both economically and to them personally. The hon. Lady
	will therefore welcome the fact that youth unemployment is lower today than it was at the time of the general election. I hope and believe that the specialist support that we are providing through the Work programme, the placements that we are providing through our work experience scheme and the extra apprenticeships for young people will make further inroads into that total.

Jason McCartney: I had the pleasure of visiting a small engineering business in Meltham a week ago. It has a big contract for making the suspension for the Ocelot Land Rover, and it is going to employ an extra 50 people over the coming 12 months. Can we learn lessons from the previous Government, who left power with 250,000 more young people unemployed, so that we can ensure that as private companies expand and take on workers, they give real emphasis to employing young people?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why the extra apprenticeships that we have launched are so important. His experience is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who is no longer in his place—at whose jobs fair several leading engineering companies were looking for young people. If we deliver the apprenticeship opportunities, the private sector is out there ready to create the jobs for young people.

John Robertson: With people living longer and being employed in jobs longer, with people coming in from outside this country and taking up the cheap labour jobs, and with there being no law in effect that means that anyone taking up an apprenticeship has to be below a certain age, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in the years ahead to ensure that young people get employed?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, describing some of the failings of the previous Government. What we have to do is ensure that we have a work-ready, well-trained work force of all ages, ready to take advantage of the opportunities that arise, when they arise. We can do that through more apprenticeships, through the specialist support in the Work programme, and through work experience placements that give young people their first taste of the workplace. I am delighted to say that youth unemployment is lower today than it was when his party left office.

Work Programme

Gavin Barwell: How many people have entered employment as a result of the Work programme.

Chris Grayling: The Work programme was launched last month and has long-term goals. Sustained jobs, not quick fixes, are what will change people’s prospects, particularly for those who are long-term unemployed. That is what the Work programme will pay for. The Department expects to release statistics on referrals to the Work programme from spring 2012, and on job outcomes lasting three or six months from autumn 2012.

Gavin Barwell: During the last recess I spent several days in my local Jobcentre Plus office and saw for myself the contribution that a number of small voluntary organisations are making to getting unemployed people back into work in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, as part of the Work programme, there will still be a role for such small local voluntary organisations?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are about 500 organisations from the voluntary sector involved, large and small, ranging from the Prince’s Trust and similar-sized organisations through to local projects such as a walled garden project in Yorkshire. There is space for any organisation that delivers excellence in getting people back to work, and those that are really good at doing it have every reason to become involved in a payment by results approach.

Hywel Williams: What steps are the Government taking to respond to the local variability in job opportunities, so that people are not penalised in the benefits system merely because jobs are not available in their area?

Chris Grayling: One of the things that we expect the Work programme providers to do is match individuals to vacancies. Even in Wales, as we know from the debate that the hon. Gentleman and I had last week, there are a significant number of vacancies. There has been private sector growth in the past few months, and unemployment has fallen. We have to ensure, through the work of Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme providers, that people on benefits take advantage of opportunities when they arise.

Richard Harrington: Several Members have mentioned jobs fairs in their constituencies. We had one in Watford two weeks ago, to which 5,000 people came and at which more than 600 jobs and apprenticeships were on offer. As we speak, three weeks later, 50 jobs and 30 apprenticeships have been offered, predominantly to young people. As the fair was organised with Jobcentre Plus and seems to be a formula that helps, at no cost whatever to the taxpayer, is the Minister prepared to circulate the idea to other Jobcentre Plus offices and assist in organising such events?

Chris Grayling: Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work. There have been a series of successful jobs fairs in Enfield North, in Stafford, in Reading East and now in his constituency. I would say to Members on both sides of the House that they are really good way of bringing together local employers, local unemployed people and others who can help them, and Jobcentre Plus and the Department will help any Member of Parliament who seeks to get such a fair up and running.

Personal Independence Payment

Catherine McKinnell: Whether he plans to review his proposal to extend the personal independence payment qualifying period from three to six months.

Maria Miller: A key principle of our welfare reforms is simplification of the complex benefit system, and that proposal is a simplification by bringing the qualifying period for personal independence payment into line with other disability benefits, while providing the sort of supports that people need with their long-term disability problems.

Catherine McKinnell: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on multiple sclerosis, I am very aware of how concerned many organisations are about the Government’s proposals. Will the Minister outline how she expects extending the qualifying period will impact on those with fluctuating conditions, especially when many of them will simply not be able to receive any support elsewhere?

Maria Miller: I do not think that the qualifying period will particularly adversely affect individuals with fluctuating conditions, because this is about distinguishing between long-term and short-term disabilities. To qualify for PIP, a person will satisfy a six-month qualifying period, and be expected to meet the overall qualifying period of 12 months. That adopts the common definition set out in the Equalities Act 2010, for consistency.

State Pension Age (Women)

Graeme Morrice: What steps he is taking in respect of women affected by proposed changes to the state pension age.

Steve Webb: While the Government remain committed to treating men and women equally in state pensions sooner, and to equalising at age 66 sooner, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill:
	“I recognise the need to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly…I say to my colleagues that I am willing to work to get the transition right, and we will.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 50.]

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for his answer, but 1,300 women in my constituency will have to wait up to two years to receive their state pension following the changes made by this coalition Government. Indeed, I have received a huge amount of mail on this issue, in which constituents have described the Government’s plans as unfair, unbelievable and cockeyed, among other things. Notwithstanding transitional relief, will the Secretary of State think again and give those affected enough notice to plan adequately for their retirement?

Steve Webb: Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between catching up with the very dramatic improvements in life expectancy, which are moving ahead faster and faster, and recognising the need for fairness and notice. We are trying to strike that balance. We recognise that we need to refine the Bill’s proposals to do so, and we will come back with proposals.

Anne McIntosh: May I thank the Minister for his answer in that regard? Will he give some reassurance to those in Thirsk, Malton and Filey who have written to me? Successive Governments,
	and the Turner report, have said that it takes some 10 years to plan for retirement. Will that be reflected and recognised in the Government’s transition proposals?

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend will be aware, if we were to delay the whole transition for 10 years we would need to find an extra £10 billion of savings out of the £30 billion in the Pensions Bill. We believe that many of the people who are affected by the transition are affected by a lot less than the two years that the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) mentioned. We are therefore trying to tackle those who are most adversely affected, and I am confident that we will be able to do so.

Rachel Reeves: May I take this chance to wish the Pensions Minister a happy birthday?
	The House knows that changes to the state pension age mean that 500,000 women in their mid-50s will have their pension delayed by more than a year, and 33,000 will have to wait an extra two years. We all welcomed what the Secretary of State and the Minister said about transition on 20 June, yet in Committee the Government tabled no amendments to their legislation, and we have heard not a word from the Minister or the Secretary of State on what those transition arrangements will look like. With the recess starting this week, what hope can the Minister give to those 500,000 women that the Government will put in place some transitional arrangements for a fairer timetable that gives people the chance to prepare, and gives them some certainty as they look forward—they hope—to their retirement?

Steve Webb: I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes for my birthday, and reciprocate by offering her good wishes for her wedding later this summer.
	On the specific issue that the hon. Lady raises, she and I have spent the best part of 20 hours debating such things in Committee over the last couple of weeks. The Government wanted to give the Opposition the chance to bring forward some fresh thinking, and we were therefore rather disappointed when they simply retabled the amendments that they had tabled in the House of Lords. We were looking for some fresh thinking—but as it has not come from the Labour party, we will have to do it ourselves.

Employment and Support Allowance

Bill Esterson: What estimate he has made of the number of people diagnosed with cancer who are in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance and have claimed it for over one year.

Chris Grayling: In November 2010, the latest month for which we have figures available, there were 1,730 people receiving employment and support allowance for over one year in the work-related activity group where the primary condition was recorded as neoplasms—that is, people diagnosed with cancer.

Bill Esterson: Many cancer patients receive treatment for more than a year, and face losing their employment and support allowance while still receiving treatment.
	How many people receive cancer treatment for more than a year, and would therefore lose ESA under the Government’s plans?

Chris Grayling: Under the changes that we have introduced, more people suffering from cancer will be in the support group receiving ongoing unconditional support than was the case under the previous Government. The changes that we have made to contributory ESA are a direct consequence of the previous Government’s financial mismanagement. We have had to take some tough decisions on budgets, and this is one of them. We have formed the view that if people have other financial means available we cannot continue to pay them ESA indefinitely. That is a natural consequence of the failings of the hon. Gentleman’s party, not a choice we would have wished to have to make.

George Hollingbery: Will the Minister reconfirm his commitment to examine whether people on oral chemotherapies should automatically be placed in the support group, rather than in the work-related activity group as they currently are?

Chris Grayling: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have now received proposals from Macmillan Cancer Relief and Professor Harrington that contain some valuable suggestions and ideas. We have not finished our consideration, but we hope to make an announcement shortly.

Child Support Agency

Caroline Nokes: What steps he is taking to prevent disagreements between parents in their dealings with the Child Support Agency.

Maria Miller: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).

Caroline Nokes: Does the Minister agree that one of the causes of conflict between both resident and non-resident parents is the unacceptable delays that their cases face when being processed by the Child Support Agency, and has she any plans to bring measures forward that would reduce those delays?

Maria Miller: The average wait at the moment is more than two months for a new application to be processed, and that can lead to non-resident parents unavoidably accruing arrears—a problem that we inherited with the present very difficult system. We have plans to undertake a fundamental reform that will considerably improve this, and lead to a much shorter time for processing claims, which will bring considerable benefits.

Jim Cunningham: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Education about the future of Sure Start? The Conservatives, before they were elected, gave a solemn commitment to retain Sure Start, yet in Coventry the cost is being passed on to the local authority.

Maria Miller: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. That question was extremely tangentially related to dealings with the Child Support Agency—but I am sure that the Minister’s ingenuity means that she will adroitly cope.

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the potential importance of Sure Start in child support. Indeed, we are talking to our colleagues in the Department for Education about possible opportunities for Sure Start to work with the Child Support Agency. We already have a trial—set up under the previous Administration—looking into that issue, and Ministers in that Department have ensured that sufficient funding is in place to keep the Sure Start network working.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: I wish to take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) for the tremendous work on early intervention that he has delivered to us. The report highlights the vital importance of early intervention for the prospects of today’s children as well as outlining recommendations for making early intervention happen through growth on the social investment market.

Annette Brooke: What assistance should Jobcentre Plus staff be giving to people with dyslexia, and what monitoring does the Department carry out to ensure that such people are not discriminated against?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for her question; it is important that we deal with people’s jobs needs in a very individual way. Jobcentre Plus has disability advisers who have special knowledge of dyslexia, and it is something that requires continued support.

Liam Byrne: On 11 July the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), confirmed that his Secretary of State had seen analysis by the Department for Communities and Local Government suggesting that his benefit cap could make 40,000 people homeless, and actually cost more than it saved. I do not mind who answers this question, but will someone please confirm whether the Minister himself also saw that analysis?

Chris Grayling: No.

Liam Byrne: This was a piece of analysis with enormous implications for the way in which the policy was implemented. This piece of work was so important that it was sent to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State. What was it that was so important about that analysis that it was not given to the Minister actually putting the legislation
	through this House? Will he now ensure that the analysis is produced before the House of Lords reaches the relevant debate?

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has written to me about this point and I have written back—but there is nothing like re-exercising the exchange—so he will know that the figures to which he refers were internal, not verified and out of date. Since then, as I have said to him, the DCLG and my Department agreed the impact assessment that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) stood on at the time of the Welfare Reform Bill and which we still stand on today. We should bear in mind the fact that—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of this—there are huge behavioural changes involved. The whole idea behind the cap—we still have no idea whether the Opposition support it or are against it—is that we believe that capping those benefits at gross £35,000 a year is reasonable. Instead of trying to dance on the head of a pin, perhaps he would like to give some leadership and tell us whether his side actually supports the cap.

Iain Stewart: Following the decision by the Payments Council not to phase out personal cheques, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he intends to change his Department’s plan to phase out payments of benefits and pensions by cheques, which is causing concern to blind and visually impaired people?

Steve Webb: We believe that the current DWP cheque service does not well suit people with a visual impairment. For example, a cheque is sent by post with no distinguishing mark on the envelope and we ask blind people to sign for the payment. We are working with customer representatives, including the Royal National Institute of Blind People, to design a simple payment system that works better for people. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no plan to require a personal identification number as part of that process.

Yvonne Fovargue: In 2010-11 there was an increase in incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance appeals of 167% on 2008-09 figures, and 50% of incapacity benefit appeals were decided in favour of the appellant. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that independent welfare benefit advice is available equally across the country, so that the figures do not reduce simply because claimants have no access to advice?

Chris Grayling: I hope that the figures will reduce because the quality of decision making within Jobcentre Plus improves as a result of the recommendations made to us by Professor Malcolm Harrington. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have strengthened the reconsideration process and are telephoning rather than writing to claimants, particularly to ensure that we get better medical evidence. I do not want cases going to appeal; I want them resolved properly, satisfactorily and accurately within Jobcentre Plus.

Graham Evans: One of my constituents living in Murdishaw, one of the most deprived estates in Runcorn, recently contacted me about the current housing benefit arrangements. My constituent believes that it is deeply unfair that people living on low incomes in areas such as Murdishaw are paying through their taxes for unemployed Londoners to live in multimillion pound houses in trendy parts of the capital. Will the Minister stand up for my constituents and ensure that housing benefit is capped at a fair level?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the Government do not want people in low-paid work put at a disadvantage relative to people who are unemployed. We believe that they should face no worse a situation. That is why we have introduced a housing benefit cap that will particularly affect central London and reduce the local housing allowance from the 50th to the 30th percentile—to make things fair between those who are on benefit and hard-working people in low-paid jobs.

William Bain: Does the Secretary of State accept the analysis of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that, with child benefit being frozen and child care support through the tax credit system being cut by 10%, families with children will need to earn 20% more this year than last to meet the soaring costs of child care? What will he do about universal credit to ensure that lone parents, in particular, do not face an unacceptable financial burden because of his changes?

Iain Duncan Smith: The whole purpose is to ensure that lone parents have an opportunity to get back to work and to support themselves through work. The hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. We do not always accept everything that comes forward; there are often analyses that we do not accept. He will understand that from his time in government. As far as we are concerned, reducing to five the age of a lone parent’s child at which the lone parent goes back to work—following the Labour party’s age reduction to seven—is the right thing to do. Getting lone parents to take control of their lives through work has to be good for them.

Rob Wilson: In April I held a successful jobs fair in Reading, with nearly 2,000 people in attendance and 40 companies offering 1,500 jobs. I will be repeating it in September. What specific improvements in the service offered to them will my unemployed constituents get from the Work programme?

Chris Grayling: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being another author of a successful jobs fair project. The Work programme will offer the long-term unemployed in his constituency, including those from the most challenged backgrounds, much more tailored and specialised support, as well as infill training and other support, which will enable them to get into work on a scale and of a quality not seen before. Not only that, but they will be supported to stay in work too.

Gavin Shuker: When will the Minister announce the so-called transitional arrangements for the women most affected by his accelerated timetable for introducing changes to the state pension age?

Steve Webb: Any changes that require primary legislation will be considered when the House considers the Pensions Bill on Report later in the year.

John Leech: The overall cap on benefit will result in some larger families living in expensive rented accommodation through no fault of their own being expected to live on £100 a week. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that the solution to that problem is to have two completely separate caps—one for housing benefit and one for the rest of benefits—so that families will not be left in poverty simply because of which part of the country they live in?

Iain Duncan Smith: The purpose of the cap is not to make people homeless or put them in difficult situations; the purpose is to try to restore the balance, so that when people enter work they do not suddenly have to lose their house because, owing to the withdrawal of housing benefit, they can no longer afford to pay for it. It is not a kindness to leave somebody in a house that they cannot afford and then put them through all that difficulty when they go to work. We are certainly looking at all those transition issues, and we will discuss them further with my hon. Friend.

Tom Greatrex: During his last outing at DWP questions the Pensions Minister undertook to respond to me imminently about Sure Start maternity grant for parents of multiples. Can he tell me how imminent is “imminent”?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for assiduously pursuing that issue. Following oral questions I had discussions with Ministers on the point that he raised, and I hope to come back to him shortly.

Amber Rudd: I recently led a competition in Hastings to find a young entrepreneur to set up in business, and was amazed and delighted at the quality of the young applicants. Can the Minister assure me that the new enterprise allowance providers will also focus on young people who might not consider themselves to be entrepreneurs, but who often have the energy, commitment and ideas to set up in business?

Chris Grayling: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the support that she has been providing to young entrepreneurs in her constituency. It is not simply the new enterprise allowance that will provide support for young people on benefits to set up businesses; many of the Work programme providers are also introducing specialist support, including one that is setting up a microfinance fund for new entrepreneurs. Self-employment is an important route out of unemployment, and we will continue to do what we can to support it.

Naomi Long: Over the last 15 months I have been dealing with a constituent who has raised a complaint against the Child Support Agency
	about a flawed calculation that it made of payments due. Can the Minister say what the Government will do to address both the opaqueness of the CSA’s processes for dealing with such complaints and the length of time that they take?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. As she and many other hon. Members will know, the Child Support Agency has administration problems. That is why we are looking at fundamental reform, particularly of the computer systems, which we hope will address the problems that her constituents are still having to endure.

Jake Berry: Unlike prisoners, those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, including Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe, are entitled to receive incapacity benefit. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government intend to do about that?

Chris Grayling: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an anomaly. It is also something that the Department is reviewing as we speak, and we will give more details in due course.

Madeleine Moon: Incapacity benefit reassessments have been causing great distress, and even suicides, among those with mental health problems. Some 95% of those polled said that they did not believe that they could trust the assessment to take their mental health condition into account. What changes will be made to ensure that people with mental health problems will have them taken into account in the work capacity assessment?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Lady will be aware, that was one of the key questions that we put to Professor Malcolm Harrington last year. As a result of his recommendations we have introduced a number of mental and cognitive champions among the providers in the assessment network. We are also considering a range of further recommendations from mental health charities, and we have instructed our decision makers to take careful account of evidence of mental health problems when reaching their decisions.

Robert Flello: North Staffs Remploy in my constituency is so successful that it has had to put on an additional shift to meet demand. Indeed, if it were not for the layers of senior management drawing funds out of Remploy like some leech, it would be very profitable indeed. Will the Minister look carefully again at the Sayce report, and at what happens during the consultation, so as to ensure that my constituents who use Remploy, and who say that it is definitely fit for the 21st century, can continue working for it?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will know from reading the Government’s response to Liz Sayce’s consultation that we are looking for new ways to run Remploy. If he feels that there is a way in which we could run it better in his constituency, I ask him please to contribute to the consultation.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Minister think it acceptable that, in chasing an outstanding payment of more than £30,000 for a mother in my
	constituency, the CSA sent just one letter to the father’s known address, and accepted the result when it came back marked “Moved away”?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that the CSA should be doing much more to ensure that both parents are responsible for their children’s financial future, post-separation. That is at the heart of our reasons for reforming the CSA and the approaches that it takes. We want to put that responsibility at the heart of the service that we are delivering.

Anne Begg: It was the Government who created the anomaly of half a million women being affected by the acceleration in the increase
	in the pension age, and it was the Government who said that they would make transitional arrangements. I was therefore astonished to hear the Pensions Minister say earlier that he was looking to the Opposition to come up with ideas for those arrangements. The Government have dug this hole, and it should be the Government who get themselves out of it.

Steve Webb: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill that while we stand by its principles, we will indeed consider those who are most affected. We had hoped that the way to listen to the views of the House would be to listen to some fresh views in Committee, but unfortunately none was forthcoming.

Points of Order

George Young: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is an unusual time to seek to catch your eye on a point of order, but in view of the fast-moving events surrounding the allegations about phone hacking at News International, I thought that it would be helpful for the House to have clarity about any additional business this week. Ministers are minded to make representations to you that that the House should be recalled on Wednesday in order for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to come to the House to update Members on recent developments, and for hon. Members to have an opportunity to hold a full day’s debate on these issues. Mr Speaker, given that we want Parliament to remain at the centre of this debate, are you able to give an indication of whether you would be minded to grant such a request?

Mr Speaker: I am, and I will be. The Leader of the House has indicated that the public interest requires that the House should meet this Wednesday. It might be helpful to the House to say that, if I receive a formal request from the Government after the House adjourns tomorrow under Standing Order No. 13, I will appoint 11.30 on Wednesday as the time for the House to meet. The business to be taken at that sitting will be set down by the Government, and the Leader of the House has given a helpful indication of what that will be.

Hilary Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First thing this morning, the Leader of the Opposition called for the House to meet on Wednesday, so I welcome the confirmation that we have just had from the Leader of the House that the Government will seek the recall of the House. However, given that events are indeed moving at a very fast pace, can we be clear on three matters? First, given the large and growing number of questions that now need to be answered by the Prime Minister concerning his judgment, it is essential that he lead the debate on Wednesday. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication that he will do so, and of what form the debate will take?
	Secondly, the Home Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will tomorrow take very important evidence from Sir Paul Stephenson, Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch. If those Committees produce reports overnight, can you confirm that the House will have a full opportunity to debate those reports and any recommendations as part of Wednesday’s business?
	Thirdly, as there may be issues of parliamentary privilege that arise from Lord Leveson’s inquiry—for example, whether Parliament was lied to, or about the disclosure of material—have you had any indication from the Government, Mr Speaker, as to how they propose to handle matters of privilege in the inquiry’s terms of reference?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for that point of order. First, as far as the Minister fielded by the Government is concerned, that is a matter for the Government. The Leader of the
	House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and will be at liberty to respond, after I have finished saying what I am about to say, if he so wishes.
	Secondly, so far as the content of the business is concerned, I wait for the Government to decide upon their motion. Once again, it is for the Leader of the House to indicate, as and when he is ready to do so, to the House the proposed terms of the debate. Thirdly, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I again await further and better particulars from the Leader of the House, but I should certainly have thought that the reports and the consideration preceding such reports to which the shadow Leader of the House has just referred would be obvious material for consideration in that debate. If the Leader of the House wishes to say anything further at this stage, he is free to do so, but he is not obliged to do so.
	The House should also be aware that at any stage between now and Wednesday, further and better particulars could be provided, and there will be a statement on Wednesday—and statements can come at a variety of times. The House will want to be conscious of that and be alert to the possibilities.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I was not proposing to take a long sequence, but I shall take a short sequence.

Peter Bone: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this not a rather unusual way of dealing with business when the House has not adjourned? Is it not normal to have a business of the House motion—on whether Parliament was going to extend its sitting—for the House to debate?

Mr Speaker: There are all sorts of things that are normal. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) might well see himself as the very national embodiment of normality and therefore a suitable judge of what is an example of the genre, but the fact that something is normal does not preclude alternatives. The Leader of the House is the person to judge these matters, and he has made his own judgment. If the hon. Gentleman wants a chat or a cup of tea with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that is a matter for them and not for the Chair.

Bill Esterson: Further to the point of order. On 13 July, I received a reply to two parliamentary questions about meetings between Ministers and News International representatives, in which I was told that
	“information relating to internal meetings, discussions and advice is not normally disclosed.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 340W.]
	In his statement on the same day, the Prime Minister said that he would be
	“consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the ministerial code…to record all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, senior editors and executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 313-14.]
	What advice can you give me, Mr Speaker, about the contradiction between the answers to my parliamentary questions received on 13 July and the statement made by the Prime Minister on the same day?

Mr Speaker: My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s attempted point of order, which is really a point of debate, is that he should ensure that he is in his seat, perched and primed and ready to pounce with his question to the Prime Minister and, possibly, to make a contribution to the debate that will follow. That is a question and that is a speech that the House will eagerly await.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am taking people on trust here. Normally, points of order and further points of order would be taken later. I am rather anticipating that points of order will narrowly relate to the matters to which the Leader of the House has just referred. I know the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)will not disappoint in that regard.

Ian Lucas: I never cease to disappoint you, but this does indeed relate to named day questions that I put forward, to which I did not receive satisfactory responses from the Prime Minister’s office. Those responses contrasted with statements made direct to the press concerning meetings that the Prime Minister had. Is it in order for the press to receive details of meetings that are not provided to Members of Parliament in answer to parliamentary questions? Is that not something that the Prime Minister should come to the House to explain on Wednesday?

Mr Speaker: The business of the House for Wednesday is gradually becoming clearer and clearer, and I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will want to raise the matters that perturb him on that occasion. I think we will leave it there for now.

Metropolitan Police Service

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the resignations of Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates, the Metropolitan police investigation into phone-hacking, and allegations of police corruption. I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for the late receipt of the statement. As I am sure she will appreciate, events have been changing rather rapidly through the day.
	As the House will know, last night Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As I told him last night, I am sorry that he took that decision. He has led the Met through difficult times, and, although current circumstances show there are still serious issues to be addressed, the Met is stronger operationally today than it was when he took over. I will turn to those difficult circumstances in a moment, but first I wish to update the House on today’s developments and on the next steps for the Metropolitan police.
	I have already started work with the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan police to arrange an orderly transition and the appointment of a new commissioner. I have agreed that Sir Paul Stephenson will leave his post as swiftly as possible. In the meantime he will remain commissioner, in post at New Scotland Yard and in operational command. Sir Paul will be replaced by Tim Godwin, who will again become acting commissioner, a role that he filled very effectively during Sir Paul’s illness between December and April this year. With Tim Godwin as acting commissioner, the Mayor and I are clear that additional resilience is essential from outside the Metropolitan police. I am therefore pleased to announce that Bernard Hogan-Howe has agreed to take on the responsibilities of deputy commissioner on a temporary basis. We are seeking to expedite the process for selecting and appointing the next commissioner.
	The House will know that within the last couple of hours Assistant Commissioner John Yates has also resigned. I want to put on record my gratitude to John Yates for the work that he has done, while I have been Home Secretary, to develop and improve counter-terrorism policing in London and, indeed, across the whole country. I can confirm to the House that Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick will take over his role.
	I want hon. Members, Londoners and the whole country to know that the important work of the Met—its national responsibilities such as counter-terrorism operations as well as its policing of our capital city—must and will continue. That important work includes the related investigations Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden.
	Operation Weeting, the investigation into phone hacking led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, is now going through the thousands of pieces of evidence relating to the allegations. Unlike the original investigation into phone hacking, Operation Weeting is proceeding apace, with officers interrogating evidence that was neglected first time round, pursuing new leads, and—as we saw once again at the weekend—making arrests.
	Operation Elveden, also led by Sue Akers, is investigating allegations that police officers have received payments from the press in return for information. This investigation has independent oversight by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. At this stage, it is a supervised investigation—which means that the IPCC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report—and as soon as individual suspected officers have been identified, IPCC investigators, overseen by an IPCC commissioner, will take over and lead a fully independent investigation of those officers.
	In the future, both these matters will be considered by the Leveson inquiry established by the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I can tell the House that Elizabeth Filkin, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has provisionally agreed to examine the ethical considerations that should in future underpin relationships between the Metropolitan police and the media, how to ensure maximum transparency and public confidence, and to provide advice. The management board of the Met has agreed a new set of guidelines relating to relationships with the media, including recording meetings and hospitality and publication of information on the internet.
	These allegations are not, unfortunately, the only recent example of alleged corruption and nepotism in the police, so I can tell the House that I have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties. I have asked HMIC to make recommendations to me about what needs to be done to address that.
	There is nothing more important than the public’s trust in the police to do their work without fear or favour, so at moments like this it is natural that people should ask who polices the police. I have already asked Jane Furniss, the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, whether she has the power and the resources to get done the immediate work at hand. She has assured me that she does, but additional resources will be made available to the IPCC if they are needed.
	I can also tell the House that I have commissioned work to consider whether the IPCC needs further powers, including whether it should be given the power to question civilian witnesses during the course of its investigations. Given that the IPCC can at present only investigate specific allegations against individual officers, I have also asked whether the commission needs to have a greater role in investigating allegations about institutional failings of a force or forces.
	Finally, I want to say one last word about the future of the Metropolitan police. The Met is the largest police force in the country, and has important national responsibilities beyond its role policing our capital. The next Metropolitan Police Commissioner will lead thousands of fine police officers, community support officers and staff, the great majority of whom have spent their careers dedicated to protecting the public, often at risk to their own safety. Just three nights ago, hon. Members will know that in Croydon an unarmed Metropolitan police officer was shot as he tried to arrest a suspect. I know that the whole House will agree with me that it is for the sake of the many thousands of honourable police officers and staff, as well as of the public they
	serve, that we must get to the bottom of all of these allegations. Only then will we be able to ensure the integrity of our police and public confidence in them to do their vital work. I commend the statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and also for her apology; I understand the timing pressures she faced. May I also join her in paying tribute to the Metropolitan police officer who was harmed during the course of duty in Croydon?
	The Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to the work of Sir Paul Stephenson. He has done excellent work in London, backing neighbourhood policing and taking action to cut crime in the capital. The Home Secretary also recognised the vital work of John Yates on counter-terrorism. She referred to Sir Paul Stephenson’s decision to resign. It was an honourable decision, to protect the ongoing operational work of the Met from the ongoing speculation, but his departure raises very serious questions for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.
	Yesterday, Home Office Ministers told the press that the Home Secretary would make a statement today on her concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis. Today she has been completely silent on that issue in this House. The truth is that the Met commissioner and the head of counter-terrorism have now gone because of questions about this crisis and about the appointment of the former deputy editor of the News of the World, yet the Prime Minister is still refusing to answer questions or apologise for his appointment of the editor of the News of the World. The judgment of the Met has been called into serious question for appointing Neil Wallis, but so has the judgment of the Prime Minister for appointing Neil Wallis’s boss, Andy Coulson. People will look at this and think there is one rule for the police and one for the Prime Minister.
	The Prime Minister agreed with that this morning. He said this morning:
	“The situation in the Metropolitan Police Service is really quite different to the situation in the Government, not least because the issues that the Metropolitan police are looking at, the issues around them, have had a direct bearing on public confidence in the police inquiry into the News of the World”.
	But the Prime Minister runs the country. The issues that he is looking at and the judgments that he makes have a direct bearing on public confidence in the Government’s ability to sort this crisis out.
	The Home Secretary is right to have had serious concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis, but it would have been better if she had told us what they were today. She is also right that she should have been told about the potential conflict of interest in the Met. This does raise serious questions for the force, but the Met commissioner has said that he could not tell her or her boss because of the Prime Minister’s relationship with Andy Coulson. So how did it come to this? The most senior police officer in the country did not feel able to tell the Home Secretary about a potential conflict of interest for the force because of the Prime Minister’s compromised relationship with Andy Coulson—it was an ongoing relationship, as they met at Chequers in March, months after the new police investigation began. This morning, she refused to defend the appointment of Andy Coulson and today the London Mayor refused to
	defend the appointment of Andy Coulson. They all seem to have forgotten rather quickly what Andy Coulson used to say—they are “all in this together”.
	The Home Secretary has been absent from this crisis, despite the serious allegations that have been made about phone hacking potentially affecting criminal investigations, the serious questions for policing and the growing cloud over the national and international reputation of British policing as a result of this crisis. She has said nothing and done nothing for two weeks. We welcome many of the announcements that she made today, but they are precisely the things that we called for last week.
	I called last week for five things, three of which the Home Secretary has now done. First, I called for new standards for the Met to govern the relationship between officers and the press. Secondly, I called for a review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into the wider concerns about leaks of information, payments for the press and corruption in other forces too. Thirdly, I called for work to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints Commission and an independent complaints procedure to deal with failed investigations in future. We welcome those, just as we welcome her agreement to the judicial inquiry that we called for too, but she should have announced two further things that we also called for.
	First, the Home Secretary needs to call for immediate openness and transparency across the Met in respect of all the dealings between senior officers and members of the press, including those at the News of the World—that needs to cover private as well as public meetings. Secondly, she needs to review her decision to go forward with elected police and crime commissioners. The nearest that Britain has to an elected police chief is the London Mayor, and that did not stop the problems at the Met—instead it made them worse. Boris Johnson described the phone-hacking allegations as “codswallop” and said that it
	“looks like a politically motivated put-up job by the Labour party”.
	What backing does the Home Secretary think Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates would have expected from the Mayor if they had decided to reopen an investigation that he had described as “politically motivated”?
	Instead of their tackling this problem, we have had an AWOL Home Secretary, a “codswallop” Mayor and a compromised Prime Minister. There is a problem—it is one of leadership. The work of police officers across the country is too important to be tarnished by her failure to get a grip of the problems now. The Home Secretary will not answer all the questions, so I leave her just with one. She knows the importance of leadership to get the country through this crisis and she has criticised the misjudgement of the Met in taking on Neil Wallis, so will she now apologise to the House for the Prime Minister’s misjudgement in taking on Andy Coulson, so that the Government can now move forward, exercise some leadership untarnished and sort the crisis out now?

Theresa May: I say to the shadow Home Secretary that from the response she has just given one could have been forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister had not been anywhere near the House of Commons in the past week, but he stood at this Dispatch Box last week,
	he answered questions in this House, he answered all the points that the shadow Home Secretary has made and he will be in this House again on Wednesday.
	The right hon. Lady asked a long list of questions. She asked why I had not said anything about openness and transparency across the Met, as I had promised to. I made specific reference in my statement to the management board decisions taken by the Metropolitan police to publish details of meetings held by senior officers with members of the press, and they will be available on the internet.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the difference between the Met and the Government. Of course there is a difference. The Metropolitan police were investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the News of the World, and it is absolutely right that there should be a line between the investigators and the investigated. The issue I raised with Sir Paul Stephenson—which she is aware of because it was made public last week—was the fact that I had concerns that he had not informed us about a conflict of interest. The police in this country should be able to act against crime and criminals without fear or favour, but when they think there is a conflict of interest that should be made transparent.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the impact of elected police commissioners. I think everything that has happened shows not that we should be going slow on reform of the police but that we need to ensure that we reform the police.
	We then have the extraordinary situation in that the shadow Home Secretary appears in one breath to be saying that I have been absent and doing absolutely nothing and in the other breath saying that I am doing everything she asked for. She cannot simultaneously claim that I am doing nothing and doing something—that is the have-your-cake-and-eat-it opportunism of Opposition politics to which I note that both she and the shadow Chancellor belong.
	Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr John Robertson, calm yourself. It is very injurious to your health and I do not want to see the effects. That is very undesirable.

Theresa May: Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things. In 2002, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport reported that the press were making illegal payments to police officers and called on the then Home Secretary to take steps to review, and overhaul if necessary, the guidance and measures aimed at preventing such behaviour by the police and media. Labour took no action. In May 2006, the Information Commissioner reported that the trade in confidential personal information was
	“a pervasive and widespread ‘industry’”.
	Labour took no action. Just two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) revealed that he had thought about getting Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an independent investigation into the Met’s handling of phone hacking, but Labour took no action. And, if the shadow Home Secretary wants to keep talking about Andy Coulson, she will have to expect to answer a lot of questions about the Labour party’s communications director, Tom Baldwin.

Mr Speaker: Order. In calling the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I congratulate him on his elevation to the Privy Council.

Tom Brake: I, too, pay tribute to the officer shot in Croydon and to all officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.
	Will the Home Secretary join me in urging the Metropolitan police to move urgently to rebuild their senior team to focus on next year’s Olympics and security concerns surrounding the games? Will she strengthen the proposed checks and balances that will apply to elected police and crime commissioners to ensure that neither elected police and crime commissioners nor chief constables can get embroiled in any scandals of any nature once those commissioners are elected?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend talks about checks and balances. As he will know, we have strengthened the checks and balances that will be provided by the police and crime panels to the police and crime commissioners as the Bill has progressed through the House of Commons and House of Lords. We have made important improvements to those checks and balances.
	As regards the senior leadership of the Met, it is entirely right that we move quickly to reinforce it. The additional resilience of bringing in somebody from outside in Bernard Hogan-Howe is important and the immediate step was to ensure that the counter-terrorism post is filled. I can assure the House that the work on the security and safety of the Olympics carries on under Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, in particular, and he has been doing an extremely good job.

Alan Johnson: If the allegations in relation to the hacking of the phones of victims of the 7/7 attack in London are true, the editor of the News of the World at the time was working in 10 Downing street, while his deputy, Neil Wallis, was working in New Scotland Yard, just at the time when the quest for the truth became more intense. I did not know, as Home Secretary, that Neil Wallis had been appointed. Did the Home Secretary know, did anyone at the Home Office know and did anyone in 10 Downing street know?

Theresa May: The first I knew of the appointment of Neil Wallis was when I heard from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police and from the Mayor last Thursday that this had been brought to the Mayor’s attention. It was at that time that I wrote to the commissioner and expressed my disquiet and concern that this issue had not been raised earlier, at a previous stage. I indicated last Thursday that that was a concern, and it remains a concern.

David Ruffley: The IPCC is renowned for the long, drawn-out nature of its inquiries. Those of us who are interested in restoring public confidence in the police would like to know from the Home Secretary when she expects the IPCC to report.

Theresa May: I have asked the IPCC to undertake a number of reports. It will report to me by the end of the summer on the report I asked it to undertake last week
	into allegations it has received about corruption in the police force previously and any lessons that need to be learned in relation to that. It will, of course, pursue investigations against any individual officers who have been named. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is right and important that that is done properly and fully. I understand the point he is making, but I am sure that none of us would want the results of those inquiries to be in any way jeopardised by a desire to do them speedily rather than fully and properly.

Jack Straw: May I underline the comments that have been made about the reputation of Sir Paul Stephenson, who was a very fine chief constable of Lancashire police before he moved on to be deputy commissioner and then Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, which he pursued with similar very high standards? Will the Home Secretary explain the point about conflict of interest? Was it not entirely proper and consistent with Sir Paul’s level of integrity that, unusually, he decided that he could not disclose information to the Home Secretary because of what he perceived to be a conflict of interest at the heart of government? Why is she trying to shuffle off responsibility for this when it is at that point that the conflict exists?

Theresa May: As I said earlier, I believe that the police should be able to investigate every allegation and to chase evidence as far as it takes them without fear or favour. When a conflict of interest arises—if the Metropolitan police feel there is a conflict of interest—that should be made transparent and that is why I believe I should have been told earlier. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan police did not make the appointment of Neil Wallis known to previous Home Secretaries—notably previous Labour Home Secretaries—either.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the biggest questions during the whole of the phone-hacking saga relate to the failures on the part of the police to investigate as well as to what has been going on in newsrooms, particularly why the police appeared never to interview a single journalist who was named as a client of Steve Whittamore in the Motorman case and why they did nothing to look at the enormous amounts of material seized from Glenn Mulcaire? Does she agree that it would be unsatisfactory if these matters could not be looked at until the beginning of the second part of the judicial review? Will she consider inviting the IPCC to begin examining these questions now?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he says, part of the inquiry that is led by Lord Justice Leveson will involve looking at the first investigation by the Metropolitan police. It is not impossible for it to start doing some work while the current investigation is going on, but that would have to be done carefully in order not to jeopardise the current investigation. I am sure that we all want to see a proper investigation and a proper inquiry with answers about what happened in that first police investigation and about why matters were not taken forward in a way that people now feel they should have been. We also want to ensure that the current investigation is not in any way prejudiced by that work because we want people who have been guilty of criminal offences to be brought to book.

Glenda Jackson: What pressure did the Prime Minister exert on the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London to bring about the resignations of both the commissioner and the assistant commissioner, which today, apparently, the Home Secretary regrets?

Theresa May: None whatsoever.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government’s failure to do anything about the Information Commissioner’s report in 2006 was compounded by the fact that they backed down under the lobbying of the Society of Editors over clause 77 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which means that a fine of £150 is the average fine for someone found guilty of stealing personal information? Will she review the section and see whether the offence should be made punishable by imprisonment?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us that at stake are some very serious issues, not just about the operation of the police and of the press, but in relation to personal information. I will certainly look at the issue he raises. As I said, the trade in personal information was raised previously by the Information Commissioner as something that should be looked at, and we should take that forward.

David Hanson: Will the Home Secretary ask Elizabeth Filkin, as part of her investigation, to report to the House of Commons on how many occasions the Chief Commissioner of Police did not brief the Prime Minister or herself because of information relating to the Prime Minister’s relationship with Mr Coulson? Can she confirm that News International began to co-operate with the police inquiry only after Mr Coulson’s resignation from Downing street?

Theresa May: In relation to Elizabeth Filkin and how she will undertake the role that she will be performing for the Metropolitan police, it is up to her to decide what she wishes to look at and how she wishes to undertake that. I detected, when I announced her name, a certain murmuring in the House. The reputation that Elizabeth Filkin has for challenging the establishment, challenging practices and ensuring that practice is appropriate and proper, and what she did here in Parliament, are such that she is an excellent choice as a candidate for the role.

Mark Pritchard: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the serious allegations concerning a royal protection officer selling personal and private details of members of the royal family, including our Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen? What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the director of the Security Service concerning this incident? Is it not the case that the Security Service should have known about this? If it did not know, why not, and if it did know, why did it not do something about it?

Theresa May: Matters relating to appropriate royal protection are dealt with by a committee chaired by Sir Richard Mottram, which sits in the Home Office. All those considerations are undertaken independently
	by Sir Richard Mottram and his committee in relation to how royal protection should be carried out. Obviously, the issue will be looked into to see the truth or otherwise of those allegations.

Keith Vaz: As the Home Secretary knows, both Sir Paul and Mr Yates are due to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee tomorrow, when Members will explore their resignations further. I welcome the appointment of Tim Godwin and Bernard Hogan-Howe, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that Mr Hogan-Howe was the only applicant for the post of head of the National Crime Agency? Will she now have to look for a new person to head that organisation? Will she answer the question that I put to the Prime Minister last week? This information is coming out because of Operation Weeting and the excellent work by Sue Akers. Could we please give her the resources she needs in order to go through the 12,870 names that are still on the books but have still not been contacted?

Theresa May: I will make an announcement on the appointment of the head of the national crime agency when appropriate. In relation to resources for Sue Akers, as has been made clear and as the Prime Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, this is one of the largest investigations taking place in the country. I am sure that everyone would agree that Sue Akers is pursuing the investigation with the appropriate degree of vigour, and I am sure that the Metropolitan police is ensuring that she has the necessary resources.

Robert Walter: The commissioner placed great emphasis on the word “integrity” in his resignation statement, and yet in the eyes of some of my constituents payments and hospitality to police officers are no different from the £12,000-worth of hospitality that Sir Paul received. Was the commissioner in breach of the Metropolitan police code of conduct, and if not, what steps can we take to restore the integrity of the Metropolitan police?

Theresa May: Of course, Sir Paul made reference to this issue in the statement he published yesterday. As I indicated in my earlier response and in my statement, the Metropolitan police have been looking at the code that should be followed by officers and strengthening it in relation to the information that should be made available and should be publicly available.

Gerald Kaufman: Since Sir Paul Stephenson said in his resignation statement that he could not speak to the Prime Minister about Neil Wallis because of the Prime Minister’s employment of Andy Coulson at No. 10 Downing street, and since the Prime Minister took Andy Coulson into his employment after Coulson had confessed to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that he had committed criminality—namely, making payments to the police—ought not the Prime Minister be considering his position?

Theresa May: No, I have made very clear the difference between the Metropolitan police and the Government in relation to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman premised his question with the fact that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister had not been told about the conflict of interest within the Metropolitan
	police on Neil Wallis, but he will note, as I said earlier, that former Labour Home Secretaries were not told about the decision to appoint Neil Wallis either.

Ben Wallace: Time and time again the Metropolitan police have failed to deal successfully with sensitive issues ranging from cash for peerages all the way through to the phone-hacking scandal. Is it not perhaps time to split the Metropolitan police between the day-to-day duties of policing London and those of carrying out more complex and detailed investigations, such as those that the special operations directorate conducts every day?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his innovative approach to these matters. I have to say that there is no intention to split the Metropolitan police. It has been able to take on their national responsibilities, and it has those responsibilities not simply because of the issues that it is responsible for across the country, such as counter-terrorism, but because, as the police force of the nation’s capital, it has of course national responsibilities that are greater than those of any other police force. I must say, as I said earlier, that the thousands of police officers and staff who day by day go about their duty protecting the public and fighting crime are doing a good job, and we should encourage them and ensure that they can continue to do so.

Dennis Skinner: Is it not a fact that the fire-storm that the Prime Minister referred to a few days ago has turned into a raging inferno around the Government’s head? Murdoch’s people are resigning and people are being arrested all over the place, and yet only one area remains intact: millionaires’ row on the Government Front Bench. When is dodgy Dave going to do the decent thing and resign?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman started his remarks with the words “Is it not a fact that”, to which my answer is no.

William Cash: The Home Secretary referred to the interaction between the inquiries she has set up and the Leveson inquiry, and her references to the relationship between the police and the media are the right approach. Does she agree that, in the interests of clarity and accountability, to refer merely to the press in the Leveson inquiry would be unsatisfactory and that 17 Select Committee Chairmen, the chairman of the 1922 committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the leaders of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that the Leveson inquiry should be extended to the media as a whole?

Theresa May: The terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week were agreed not only by the Government but in consultation with the Opposition and, as I understand it, with the Leader of the Opposition, and of course with Lord Justice Leveson himself.

Alun Michael: In her statement, the Home Secretary said that she is asking the chief inspector of constabulary to look at some serious issues at the Met, namely “instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements
	and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties.” That must involve a number of illegal actions and/or misconduct. Any chief officer who is aware of such things—illegal actions or misconduct—is legally obliged to refer the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Why is the Home Secretary not referring these matters there, where they can be properly investigated?

Theresa May: I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have slightly misunderstood the reference I made in my statement. I have asked HMIC to look widely across policing—not just at the Met—at issues of, as he says, “undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power”. As he says, if any officer is aware of an individual officer who has undertaken something that is an abuse of power, a complaint should be made to the IPCC, which will investigate complaints against individual officers. It does not currently have the power to investigate complaints about wider issues in relation to forces as opposed to individual officers. As well as asking HMIC to look at these issues more widely, because there are other examples of this sort of concern in other constabularies, I am asking the IPCC whether it needs further powers and what we should be doing to ensure that it can investigate more widely across forces rather than just individual officers.

Andrew Murrison: By any reasonable international comparison, the probity and integrity of our policemen and policewomen is unsurpassed, and the Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to them today. Does she agree that we should lose no opportunity to articulate our support for them since their morale and self-confidence are likely to be severely dented by this crisis?

Theresa May: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said at the police bravery awards a couple of weeks ago, we have the finest police officers in the world—I believe that—but it is our duty to all those honourable, hard-working police officers and staff across the country to ensure that we get to the bottom of these allegations and sort this all out.

Paul Goggins: The year 2012 was always going to be a very challenging one for the Metropolitan police, with the Olympic games, with convicted terrorists returning home from prison, and with relocated suspects being allowed to go back to their own homes. Given the events of the past 24 hours, will the Home Secretary now give urgent consideration to delaying the implementation of the new, weaker terrorism prevention measures in order to reduce risk and give the new commissioner time to prepare properly?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the package that was agreed involves not just the TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—but extra money, with tens of millions of pounds for the Security Service and the police to put in place extra surveillance so that they are able to mitigate any risk that has come about through the change in those orders. Yes, next year will be a challenging year. The Met police have themselves accepted and said publicly that it will be a very challenging time for them in having to ensure
	the security and safety of the Olympics. That has been worked on for several years—it is under the very competent leadership of Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison—and extremely good work has been done, but we continue, of course, to ensure that we are putting in place what is necessary to do what we all want to do, which is to ensure that everybody can enjoy a secure and successful games.

Julian Huppert: For decades, all across the country, the media have had the uncanny ability to show up at an arrest or another police incident. While I am sure that most of the police would never take part in this, can the Home Secretary assure me that we will be looking across the country, wherever this happens, and keeping an eye out for other such suspicious coincidences of a TV camera showing up just in time?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I can assure him that this issue is being taken into account in the various inquiries and investigations.

Nigel Dodds: At this time of unprecedented chaos within the Metropolitan police, and given the Met’s national responsibilities for national security, are not the public right to feel concerned that it has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to protecting citizens against terrorism? What is the Home Secretary going to do to reassure people that the Met is on top of its game in terms of protecting the public against the threat of terrorism both here in the United Kingdom and from abroad?

Theresa May: The work that has been done by the Met, indeed led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, on counter-terrorism policing has been important. Counter-terrorism policing has improved over the years and extra resources have been put in, which has been beneficial in keeping this country safe. The Metropolitan police has moved quickly to ensure that there is an immediate appointment to replace Assistant Commissioner John Yates in Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick. I am sure that she will take this work forward every bit as effectively as has been done previously. I assure people that the eye has not been taken off the ball; we are very conscious of the duty to protect the public, be it from criminals or terrorists.

Nicola Blackwood: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome her comments about strengthening the powers of the IPCC. However, given that the circumstances surrounding these resignations will have further undermined public confidence in the police, will she tell the House what steps the Met itself will be taking to put things right as we await the outcome of the public inquiry?

Theresa May: Indeed. When Tim Godwin takes over as acting commissioner, he will obviously want to consider the steps that the Met can take, as he already has been doing, such as being more transparent about relationships with the press. Crucially, Elizabeth Filkin is being brought in to advise the Met on such matters, so that it can show the public that it has changed the way it deals with these things and increase the public’s confidence. It is also
	important to have the additional resilience that is brought by somebody coming in from the outside, so Bernard Hogan-Howe will take on the responsibilities of a deputy commissioner to enhance that work.

Michael Meacher: The Guardian produced abundant evidence several months ago that in handling phone hacking at the News of the World, the police had cut short their original inquiry, suppressed evidence, misled the public and the press, concealed information and broken the law. Why did the Home Secretary not take action then, when it was already perfectly clear that something was going terribly wrong at Scotland Yard?

Theresa May: The initial Guardian story that required investigation actually came in July 2009 under the last Government. That was looked at to see whether there was fresh evidence and a decision was taken that there was not. In September 2010, a question was raised about stories that had appeared in the American press. Again, that was looked at to see whether there was fresh evidence. At the time—[ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) asks what I did. I will tell him what I did. At that time, I came to this House and said that it was up to the police to investigate the matter and that it was not for politicians to tell police officers who or what to investigate. I said that the police should investigate any evidence, wherever it took them, and ensure that anybody who was guilty of criminal offences was properly brought to justice.

Claire Perry: This scandal has run over two Governments and three Prime Ministers. Does the Home Secretary agree that the focus of every Member of this House should be on trying to get to the truth and to find a solution to this problem—we are on the front foot finally—rather than on playing the clapped-out political blame game so beloved by the Labour party?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She reminds the House that our prime duty and responsibility is to restore confidence in the police so that people feel that the police are doing their job appropriately and properly. There are thousands of honourable policemen and women who are continuing to do their job and we should support and encourage them. We need to get to the bottom of these allegations so that the public truly can have full confidence in what the police are doing.

Stephen McCabe: Given the Home Secretary’s fulsome praise for Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, should I assume that she will back his call for a delay in cuts to specialist posts, particularly public order posts, until after the Olympics?

Theresa May: Of course we have reviewed the requirements for Olympic security, and we did an audit of it when we came into government. In the run-up to the Olympics we will continue to ensure that the resources that are available and the measures that are taken will provide a secure and safe games.

Mark Reckless: Is the Home Secretary aware of the statement that Sir Paul made at the conference of the Association of Chief
	Police Officers in July 2009, which suggests that it was not John Yates who limited the review then to less than a day but the commissioner himself?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As he will know as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, the Committee will have a chance to question both Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates tomorrow at its further meeting.

Kate Hoey: Does the Home Secretary have any concern that the basic principle that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty in a criminal court has been thrown out of the window?

Theresa May: That is an important principle on which we must base what we do. That is why I try not to comment on things until I have seen the evidence on matters of concern. It is of course true that these investigations must be followed through properly and fully, so that those who are guilty can be brought to justice and any speculation about those who are innocent can be cleared up.

Charlie Elphicke: The allegations that payments were made improperly to the police were first made in 2003. The House needs to know what action was taken by the Home Office and by successive Ministers over the period since that date. Will the Home Secretary do a review and make a report to Parliament?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. As I indicated in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, there were indeed a number of times under the last Government when these issues and concerns were raised and no action was taken.

Chris Ruane: The Metropolitan police has had the names of thousands of UK citizens whose phones have been hacked into for a very long time. Have all the people who have had their phones hacked into been informed of it by the police?

Theresa May: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan police’s current investigation has made it clear, as I understand it, that it is going through the names on lists. I caution him on his assumption that everybody whose name appears on a list has necessarily “had their phone hacked into”, in his terms, but that is being looked into by the current investigation. It is clear that it is alerting people when it finds evidence.

Michael Ellis: In May 2006, five-plus years ago, the Information Commissioner issued a report stating that the trade in confidential personal information was “pervasive and widespread”. In view of the rather self-righteous tone taken by the Opposition, is the Home Secretary surprised that the then Government did not order an inquiry into the matter?

Theresa May: As I said earlier, it is surprising that Opposition Members who are making so much noise about what has happened now seem conveniently to forget that their Government failed to take action despite a number of issues being raised directly with them.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Returning to the security of the Olympics, is it not time that a pause was taken, given the evidence presented to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee by Assistant Deputy Commander Osborne that it would take 12 months to get the resources in place to deal with the new TPIMs? Is it not time, now that we have lost the two most senior officers in counter-terrorism, to call a halt to those measures until after the Olympic and Paralympic games?

Theresa May: We have of course been discussing with the Metropolitan police and the Security Service the arrangements that will be in place as a result of the extra finances available for surveillance when the TPIMs come in. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have discussed the matter with the Metropolitan police, and it is clear that measures will be in place for an appropriate transition from control orders to TPIMs.

Gavin Barwell: I thank my right hon. Friend for paying tribute to PC Wayne Stevens, who was shot while on duty on the streets of Croydon on Friday night.
	As a London MP, my concern is that the Met has sufficient resources to do the job of patrolling the streets of London, and that the two investigations are robustly pursued so that we find out exactly what happened and anyone guilty of a crime is brought to justice. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, working with the Mayor, she will ensure that that is the case?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that we do of course talk to the Metropolitan police about the resources that it has available and the way in which it chooses to police the streets of London. If I may say so, one thing that Sir Paul Stephenson did was significantly to increase the amount of time available for patrol by moving to single patrols, which has been a very important step in improving the time for which officers are actually out on the front line.
	I again pay tribute to the police constable who was shot three nights ago. It is very easy for the House to forget the danger that police officers put themselves into day in and day out to keep the public safe, and we should thank them for it.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the Home Secretary’s statement, she said that she was sorry that Sir Paul Stephenson had to resign. Does that mean that she thinks he should not have resigned and that he should have carried on, despite this cloud around his head? Could she explain what her thinking behind that is, or is it crocodile tears to cover the fact that she asked him to resign?

Theresa May: On the last point, can I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not ask Sir Paul Stephenson to resign? As far as I am concerned, nobody asked him resign: the decision was taken by Sir Paul Stephenson. I am sorry that he decided to resign—I have said that several times, and have made that clear. Under his leadership, the Met has done excellent work in protecting the public, and in cutting and fighting crime. He led the Met through some very difficult times. He took it over at a difficult time, and I think he has made the force operationally stronger.

Duncan Hames: In the light of the concerns raised by this issue, what action does the Home Secretary expect of police authorities outside London to root out inappropriate practices and to restore public confidence in the independence of their forces?

Theresa May: I would hope that police authorities will have been considering the issues that have been raised, and that they will give full and proper support to the review that the inspectorate of constabulary will do on this issue in police forces across the country.

Christopher Leslie: The Home Secretary says that she did not know about the appointment of Mr Neil Wallis to the Metropolitan police. Did Andy Coulson know, and did the Prime Minister know?

Theresa May: I might remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that in fact, the appointment of Neil Wallis—or, to be correct, of Chamy Media—was undertaken not under this Government, but in September 2009, under the previous one.

Graham Evans: The whole House will remember when Damian McBride planned to smear the wives and families of Opposition Members. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agree that those who live in glass houses should be more careful about throwing stones?

Theresa May: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and as I pointed out to the shadow Home Secretary, the communications director advising the Leader of the Opposition is a former News International employee, Tom Baldwin.

Mike Gapes: In view of the remarks of the Mayor of London—he said that the phone hacking allegations were “politically motivated” and “codswallop”—does the Home Secretary believe that he is a fit and proper person to be involved in the appointment of the commissioner of the Metropolitan police?

Theresa May: Yes.

Therese Coffey: Given that Sir Paul and Mr Yates resigned from the Metropolitan police, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clarify whether they can take up any other policing position, including with ACPO or any other policing agencies?

Theresa May: Normally, officers who serve in ACPO are serving officers rather than people who have retired. Therefore, I think Sir Paul Stephenson and Assistant Commissioner Yates will not be taking up any such places.

Malcolm Wicks: May I first echo the words of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)? Obviously, our thoughts are with our police officer from Croydon and his family at this difficult time.
	May I put it to the Home Secretary that many Londoners are confused about the respective roles of the Home Secretary, the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Authority? Who in our democracy is ultimately responsible and accountable for the conduct and integrity of the Metropolitan police?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the legislation under which Londoners are confused was introduced by the Government in which he was a Minister. This Government are now clarifying the position under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. We will streamline the arrangements that exist in relation to appointments and the position of the police and crime commissioner in London. However, the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners will remain, as it is today, a final decision of the Home Secretary.

Bob Stewart: As I understand it, Lord Justice Leveson’s terms of reference are restricted to phone hacking. I wonder whether it is possible for the inquiry to look also at hacking into e-mails and the illegal acquisition of information such as medical documents.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is not the first to raise the issue of the remit of the Leveson inquiry. It will cover the culture, practices and ethics of the press, as well as the relationship of the press to the police and issues of regulation. So I would expect that it would indeed be able to look wider than just the issue of phone hacking.

Chuka Umunna: I note that the Home Secretary did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about whether the Prime Minister knew that Neil Wallis was working for the Met and/or whether Andy Coulson knew the same. Could she perhaps respond and let us know that answer to that question?

Theresa May: I must say to that hon. Gentleman that so far as I am aware, no, they did not know.

Jason McCartney: An experienced columnist from The Guardian said on the BBC yesterday that to the best of her knowledge she believed that the passage of information between journalists and the police was common and widespread. Does the Home Secretary agree that the police investigation should go wherever it leads and follow through all leads on that matter?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that, whatever the evidence shows, the police investigation is able to follow the leads to the rightful conclusion without fear or favour, and that they ensure that wherever it leads proper action is taken and people who have committed criminal offences are properly brought to justice.

Hywel Williams: The Mayor of London this morning that Sir Paul had taken a very brave individual decision. Is the Home Secretary confident that that is the most accurate, appropriate and apposite description of the events leading up to that resignation?

Theresa May: I have made my position on Sir Paul Stephenson’s resignation absolutely clear. In his time in office at the Metropolitan police he has strengthened the force operationally, and under his leadership it has been effective and done excellent work in cutting crime and protecting the public.

Nia Griffith: Given that the Mayor of London actively discouraged the reopening of the police inquiry by referring to the phone-hacking allegations as “codswallop” and a Labour plot, what inquiries will the Home Secretary make into what advice the Mayor took before making those views known and using his influence in that way?

Theresa May: The advice that the Mayor takes is a matter for him.

John Mann: When did Mr Ed Llewellyn pass on the Guardian dossier to the Home Office?

Theresa May: I am not aware that there was a Guardian dossier. There was information that was generally available to the public, as I understand it. There is an issue here about the role of the Home Office that Opposition Members sometimes fail to grasp. It is not the job of politicians to tell the police who to investigate or arrest. It would be a very sorry day for our police and our democracy if we ever went down that road.

John Woodcock: Did the Home Secretary raise any concerns to anyone about bringing Andy Coulson into the heart of Government and, if not, does she now regret that failure to speak up?

Theresa May: I have made clear the difference between the Metropolitan police and the Government. The Prime Minister has answered the point about Andy Coulson. He did that last week and he made it absolutely clear that he gave Andy Coulson a second chance. That did not work out and Andy Coulson resigned again.

Toby Perkins: The Home Secretary finally made us aware that she was not told if the Prime Minister knew about Neil Wallis’s employment. Can she confirm whether Andy Coulson knew about the employment of his former deputy by the Metropolitan police?

Theresa May: I have been asked that question and I have answered it.

Denis MacShane: Before Wednesday’s debate, would the Home Secretary have the kindness to place in the Library details of all communications, in writing or by phone or e-mail, between Andy Coulson and her private office since she took up the post of Home Secretary?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman, like a number of his colleagues, is seeming to focus purely on Andy Coulson. I say to him and Members of the House that we have a serious job to do—to ensure that we restore confidence in the Metropolitan police and the police generally and to deal with allegations over the operations of the police. We owe it to the public and to the honourable police officers in the Met and other forces
	in the country to do that seriously, to consider all the allegations and to ensure that they are followed through and dealt with.

Kevin Brennan: Were there any meetings between Neil Wallis and Andy Coulson while the latter was working for the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street? If the Home Secretary cannot give us that information now, will she undertake to give it to us later?

Theresa May: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. It is not the sort of information that is available to me. I would point out to him that for the first part—considerable part—of the period when Neil Wallis was in his advisory capacity to the Metropolitan police, the Labour party was in government.

Michael McCann: May I make a statement of the obvious? The Home Secretary has been chasing this issue from day one. She got it wrong on phone hacking, she got it wrong on a judge-led inquiry and it has taken two high-profile resignations to place just a semblance of respectability on an affair that every dog on the street knows stinks. Is it right that Sir Paul Stephenson resigns for Neil Wallis, but the Prime Minister gets off scot-free for hiring not the monkey but the organ grinder, Andy Coulson?

Theresa May: I am not sure that there was actually a question in all that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, in 2002, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported that the press were making illegal payments to police officers and called on the then Home Secretary to review and, if necessary, overhaul the guidance and measures aimed at preventing such behaviour by the police and media. The Labour Government did absolutely nothing.

Chris Bryant: I am afraid that I welcome the two resignations today because I think that Assistant Commissioner Yates, by his own admission, misled Parliament; because the relationship between the News of the World and the Metropolitan police became so close as frankly to be collusive; and because we had this ludicrous situation in which Andy Hayman was leaving the employment of the Metropolitan police to work for News International and Neil Wallis was leaving News International to work for the Metropolitan police. That cannot be good for the Metropolitan police in the end. I know that the Home Secretary cannot tell anybody what investigations to undertake, but will she ensure that there is a proper investigation into the Surrey police and what happened between the police officers in charge of the investigation following Milly Dowler’s disappearance and death and News of the World and other journalists at the time? I do not think that the collusion was only in the Metropolitan police.

Theresa May: A number of concerns have been raised about issues in other forces relating to contractual arrangements, employment arrangements and other matters. That is why I am asking HMIC to look at these issues more closely across policing, including at issues of abuse of power.

Tom Greatrex: The Home Secretary rightly said in her statement that confidence in the police—for both the public and serving police officers—must be of paramount concern in getting to the bottom of these allegations. She has just shared with the House information about other police forces, but has she had any contact with the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, about how these types of inquiry can range across Scottish police forces as well as those for which she is directly responsible?

Theresa May: I have not had such interaction with the Scottish Justice Minister, but I am happy to alert him to the steps that we are taking in relation to forces in England and Wales so that he may look at that in relation to Scottish forces.

Wayne David: Looking ahead to Wednesday, may I urge the Home Secretary to have a word with the Prime Minister to ensure that as well as making a statement he will also lead the debate?

Theresa May: Hon. Members have asked that the Prime Minister comes to the House on Wednesday. He will be doing that.

Barry Gardiner: The right hon. Lady has sought to distinguish the probity of the appointments made by Sir Paul Stephenson and those made by the Prime Minister on the grounds that there is a proper distance between those being investigated and those doing the investigation. Does she agree that there should also be a proper distance between the law-makers in this country and those suspected of lawbreaking?

Theresa May: I say what I said earlier about the difference between the Government and the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan police was in the process of investigating —or had been investigating—the News of the World for alleged wrongdoing. It is right, therefore, that we should look at drawing a line between the investigators and the investigated.

Helen Goodman: There seems to have been an exchange of staff between the Metropolitan police and News International. Last week, I asked the Minister of State, Cabinet Office whether former police officers were subject to the rules of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. He has written to me saying that he does not know. Can the Home Secretary say what the current rules are and whether Mr Hayman followed them?

Theresa May: Perhaps the hon. Lady should have raised that with the last Cabinet Office Minister, under the last Government, because that was when those issues arose.

Bill Esterson: If Sir Paul Stephenson was right when he said that he made an error of judgment in his appointment of Neil Wallis at a time when he had not been implicated in phone hacking, what does that say about the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Andy Coulson at a time when he had already resigned once over the very same issue?

Theresa May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman could have listened to the answer that I have already given—on a number of occasions now—about the difference between the Government and the Metropolitan police. Of course, the point is that the Metropolitan police is responsible for investigating allegations of potential wrongdoing at the News of the World.

Madeleine Moon: The stench that arises from the rotting drains underneath this Chamber seems to be an apt background to a lot of the debate that we have had today. Over the weekend, we had the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, ahead of her giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday. I appreciate that the Home Secretary says that it is not up to her to say who is arrested or when, but is it not time that we clarified the role of police investigations and investigations conducted by Select Committees for those investigations being conducted in both places?

Theresa May: I think the hon. Lady will find that Select Committees are very clear about the role and the powers that they have. What is important is that police investigations that could lead to criminal charges and prosecution are not prejudiced in any way by other investigations that take place. That is why we are being very careful in relation to the inquiry that is being led by Lord Justice Leveson. The hon. Lady also refers to needing to clear out the drains. Obviously the drains have not been cleared out for a number of years, but this Government are doing it.

Ian Lucas: Which individual police officer made the decision to employ Neil Wallis’s company?

Theresa May: As I understand it, the decision was made by the director of public affairs, not an individual police officer in the Metropolitan police.

Defence Transformation

Liam Fox: I wish to express my condolences to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins of 9th/12th Royal Lancers, who was killed in Afghanistan on Saturday. My thoughts and prayers—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with them at this very sad and difficult time for them.
	I wish to make a statement on the next steps in implementing the strategic defence and security review. This Government inherited both a national economic disaster that represented a strategic threat and a defence programme undermined by a £38 billion black hole. Without a fundamental review for 12 years, our armed forces were still largely configured for the 20th century, despite a decade of sustained operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The failure to set out a coherent long-term strategy for defence or to match commitments effectively to resources is one of Labour’s worst legacies. However, it is not enough to deal with the mess that we inherited; we also need to build something better for the future.
	Right from the start, this Government have been determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and to make the difficult decisions that were ducked by the previous Government. We are determined to be bold and ambitious and to build formidable, well-managed armed forces structured for the rigours of future conflict and supported by an affordable defence programme. The SDSR has mapped out our long-term goal for Future Force 2020. The report of the defence reform unit that I announced to the House on 27 June was part of that process. Today, I want to set out the next phase of defence transformation, which involves bringing the Army back from Germany, creating a better future for our reserve forces, and delivering on our commitment to agree a 10-year defence equipment budget.
	I have written to Members of both Houses and the devolved Administrations whose constituencies and interests are affected by the decisions that we have taken. Commitments must match resources in order to achieve a balanced budget. As part of the preparation for this year’s planning round, we have identified a number of adjustments to the defence programme. This includes rationalising vehicle acquisition to make the best use of those that we have already procured to support operations in Afghanistan, and continuing to bear down on non-front-line costs, where we will aim to deliver further substantial efficiencies in support, estate spending and IT provision.
	Against this background, and as part of our overall approach to balancing the programme, I have agreed with the Treasury that the Ministry of Defence can now plan on the defence equipment and equipment support budget increasing by 1% a year in real terms between 2015-16 and 2020-21. I am grateful to colleagues, and particularly to the Prime Minister, for their support in this process. Such a long-term planning horizon will give greater stability and predictability, and stop the old practice of simply pushing programmes into future years. These and other changes will enable us to proceed with a range of the high-priority programmes set out in the SDSR.
	I can therefore now give the go-ahead for the procurement of 14 additional Chinook helicopters, the upgrade of the Army’s Warrior vehicles, spending on the joint strike fighter, the procurement of the Rivet joint intelligence and surveillance aircraft, the cats and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and the development of the global combat ship. This equipment can now be bought with confidence, ending a decade of uncertainty for our armed forces and for industry. However, similar discipline will be applied in future: we will order only what we can afford to buy.
	Today I am placing in the Library the report of the review into the reserve forces, “Future Reserves 2020”. I would like to thank General Sir Nick Houghton, Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for their excellent report. The report makes it clear, and I fully agree, that our reserve forces make an outstanding contribution to operations but have been shamefully neglected in recent years. For example, by some estimates, the Territorial Army has a trained and active strength as low as 14,000.
	I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government will proceed with a £1.5 billion investment package over the next 10 years to enhance the capability of the reserves and consequently increase their trained strength, £400 million of which will be spent during this Parliament. The Government will work with employers and legislate if necessary to ensure that the reserves are more readily useable on operations. This significant investment will also build up the capacity of the reserves to contribute to homeland security consistent with the adaptive posture set out in the SDSR.
	As the capability of the Territorial Army improves, this will allow a progressive adjustment of the regular-reserve balance of the Army while maintaining the land forces capability set out in the SDSR. This will include the delivery of the multi-role brigade structure of Future Force 2020. By 2020, if the Territorial Army develops in the way we intend, we envisage a total force of around 120,000, with a regular to reserve ratio of around 70:30. This will be more in line with comparable countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia.
	Let me turn to basing. The decisions that we have taken in the SDSR to reduce aircraft types, bring the Army back from Germany and form the Army into five multi-role brigades will enable us to rationalise the defence estate and dispose of high-value sites that are no longer needed. The security of the nation and the requirements of defence were paramount in our analysis, but we have also considered the impact of changes on local communities, the impact on service personnel and their families, and the current pattern of the armed forces in Britain.
	Army brigades currently stationed around Catterick and Salisbury will make up three of the five multi-role brigades. The other two MRBs will be based in the east of England, centred on Cottesmore, and in Scotland, centred on Kirknewton, south-west of Edinburgh. The MRB centred in Scotland will require a new training area, and positive discussions are being taken forward with the Scottish Government. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars, increasing the number of posts there from 1,200 to more than 1,300. Consequently, the Typhoon force due to be built up there will instead be built up at RAF Lossiemouth. Other MRB units will be moved into Glencorse, Caledonia,
	Albemarle barracks and eventually Arbroath, as we intend over time to bring the bulk of the Royal Marines together in the south-west. We are also planning to place Army units in Kinloss in around 2014-15, continuing its long-term relationship with defence.
	Taken together, this represents a significant increase in the defence footprint in Scotland of well over 2,000 posts. This is in line with the Scottish tradition of supporting our armed forces and is a recognition that these are United Kingdom forces under the Crown, protecting the citizens and interests of this United Kingdom. With the move to five multi-role brigades, we have concluded that 19 Light Brigade in Northern Ireland will be disbanded. Other units returning from Germany will move into the vacated bases and we remain committed to maintaining a permanent military garrison in Northern Ireland; 160 Wales Brigade will remain in Brecon.
	We will retain St Athan at its current size for now, but intend to increase its usage to take full advantage of the excellent facilities there. RAF Marham will remain as a base for Tornado GR4. The defence technical training programme will move to Lyneham, guaranteeing its future. More details of these and other estate-related decisions are in the written statement I have laid today. The planning work, including the investment required to adapt sites, will now get under way, based on this strategic direction. It will involve consultations with local communities as appropriate and other statutory obligations that we will need to fulfil.
	I am very conscious of the uncertainties that these changes will cause for service personnel and their families. Let me reassure them that the majority of the moves I have announced today will take place after 2015. In both basing and reserves, we have sought wherever possible to strengthen the strong and natural links between local communities and the armed forces. I do not underestimate the importance of these ties in underpinning the military covenant.
	The overall package I have announced today is good news for our armed forces and means that they can look forward to the future with renewed confidence because the defence programme I have announced is underpinned with real resources. This investment in people and equipment is not the wish list of the past, but certainty for the future. I commend these decisions to the House.

Jim Murphy: I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins, who was tragically killed in Afghanistan over the weekend.
	Last week, I offered wide and warm welcome to the Secretary of State for his thoughtful announcements on the Mull of Kintyre. Today, I am afraid, the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to take a different approach. The Government have been grappling with four big policy areas over the past few months: the RAF basing review, reserve forces, the financial settlement and proposed cuts to the Army. Each of these issues is of national importance and each is deserving of a statement in its own right, yet the Secretary of State comes here in what he thought was to be the last full day of Parliament to cram them into one 10-minute speech. This is a shabby way to treat our forces, and a shabby way to treat this Parliament.
	The Government have chosen today, at the high point of one of the biggest political crises in decades, to bury this bad news of 10,000 cuts to the Army—a decision that will not take effect for many years to come. Why are the Government again blaming others? These announcements today are their cuts and their choices. The Secretary of State has announced cuts to the Army of 17,000—just under a sixth of the entire force in just 10 short months.
	When in opposition, the Secretary of State said:
	“In the real world the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the army is already too small”—
	and he went on to demand
	“A bigger Army for a safer Britain”.
	Today, however, he has announced a smaller Army for a country that we can assume he sees as having only smaller ambitions—from a party that promised thousands of extra troops. It is hard to conclude other than this is strategic shrinkage by stealth. Today’s cut in the Army is bigger than the entire current deployment of all UK forces in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State explain why he believes it is in Britain’s strategic national security interest to have an Army so dramatically reduced in size? Will he also say whether this announcement is a result of planning round 11 having been completed?
	We welcome any additional investment in our armed forces, and the £1.5 billion from the Treasury is good news, as is the announcement about St Athan. Many of the new capabilities were frozen in the Government’s defence review. We will look at the small print with renewed care, which we have learnt to do in recent months. Notwithstanding last week’s trumpeted announcement on the extension of the operational allowance to Operation Ellamy, hundreds of our forces in Libyan operations will not receive a single penny.
	Reservists are great patriots, and provide a bridge to our communities at a time when many people have little understanding of or connection with a large number of our armed forces. They serve with enormous bravery, and we should pay permanent tribute to those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. There would, of course, be concern if bespoke standing units of reservists became the norm, as that could increase the commitment required from civilians. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of today’s announcement on retention and recruitment, and how does he address the fear that his approach will undermine the “one Army” concept?
	Reform of the defence estate is important to ensuring that our armed forces are properly provided for, but there will be fury in Fife. The RAF has been based in Leuchars for more than 70 years, and it is a matter of deep regret that the Government have chosen to break an historic link that has served the nation so well in peace and in war. It is clear that they have not done their homework. They are closing an RAF base to make savings that they have not identified, and are redeploying the Army at costs that they have not quantified. Will the Secretary of State say how much it will cost to convert the RAF base into an Army garrison—because there will be substantial upfront expenditure—and will he guarantee that there will no period without a military presence at Leuchars, which would have a huge impact on the local communities? Will he also commit his
	Department to detailed research on the defence estates and the industrial footprint of United Kingdom defence in Scotland?
	Following the defence review, it is clear that the country is engaged in events that Ministers did not foresee and reliant on equipment that Ministers planned to scrap. We now have a defence policy based on assumptions that are completely out of date. It seems that the Government are starting to face up to the inadequacy of their own defence review. Surely now is the moment for them to think again, and properly to reopen that flawed and rushed review.

Liam Fox: That was one of the poorest attacks on a Government that I have ever heard. It is pretty rich for the Opposition, after calling for the statement for so long, to complain when we make it. They also seem to be utterly incapable of understanding, even now, the appalling financial state in which they left not only defence but the United Kingdom in general. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that had we been given a choice—had we not faced a national economic emergency—we would be making spending reductions across the board? We are having to do that because of the mess that the Opposition left behind.
	When it comes to numbers, yet again the Opposition seem not to have learned any lessons. They talk about total numbers all the time, but they do not talk about deployability. Yet again they have failed to learn the lessons of the mistakes that they made during their time in office. I want to see British forces that can be deployed better, and I want to see them better trained and properly equipped. When they talk about how much they value the TA, the Opposition would do well to remember that it was they who were cutting the reserves during their last months in office. It was they who were cutting reservists’ training and allowances to save small amounts of money. We do not need any lessons from them in that regard.
	We are trying to augment the “one Army” concept by ensuring better interoperability between our reserves and our regular forces. We want our reserves, like those in other countries, to be properly used in a way that gives good value for the investment made in them, and gives them a greater say and more respect within the military family.
	Investment had already been made in Leuchars, and I fully accept that some of that investment will be lost. However, we felt that—in the broader scheme of things, and if we were to achieve a better rationalisation of the estate—Lossiemouth was the better choice, given that we had an alternative for Leuchars in the form of investment in the Army in the south of Scotland.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the footprint in Scotland. I should be happy to look at our footprint across the United Kingdom. What we have done is return to Scotland a footprint that is much more akin to what was there when we left office than to what was there when we returned to it.

Nicholas Soames: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his important and impressive announcement. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) said, the Army will discover that the RAF bases into which it moves are very much
	better found than it is used to. Does the Secretary of State agree that the transformation and whole reform of the defence structure needs to proceed at a great pace, otherwise the rats at the Ministry of Defence will get at it?

Liam Fox: I would like to say that I am rat-proof, but that would probably be tempting fate. We have set out a path that we will clearly follow, from the defence reform set out by Lord Levene, through the basing review, which we have set out today, and through the reserves review and the extra investment that goes with that. It is correct that some of that will have to proceed quickly, but it is also correct that some of it can occur only if other steps are met. For example, the assumptions we make about Future Force 2020 and the size of the regular reserve ratio will depend on two things: that we ensure that the training and equipping of the reserves goes to the plan I have set out, and that we withdraw from Afghanistan in the time scale the Prime Minister has set out.

Bob Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State not even acknowledge—these words have not crossed his lips—that his announcement today effectively brings the cuts in the regular Army to in excess of 17,000? That comes on top of the cuts he has announced to the RAF and the Navy, and on top of the cuts he has announced to the Royal Marines, because no Minister has been prepared to acknowledge that not only has 19 Light Brigade been disbanded, but so too has 3 Commando Brigade. The Secretary of State is telling the House that we cannot afford—[Interruption.] Well, if Ministers are going to tell us that 3 Commando Brigade still exists, I want the Secretary of State to stand up and say that, because it does not—and if the Minister for the Armed Forces does not even know that, he should not be in his job. Members on both sides of the House worry that it is not the strength that we cannot afford, but it is the weakness that we potentially cannot afford, and we have not had any debate about this massive demise in our military capability. The strategic defence and security review did not provide such a debate, but we surely need it now.

Liam Fox: It defies belief that senior former Ministers of the previous Government can still come to this House and demand that we spend money that is not there. The right hon. Gentleman complains about cuts, but I have to point out to him that we have had to introduce cuts right across public spending because the previous Government left us with a £158 billion annual deficit, and what he calls the equipment programme was no more than a wish list at the MOD; there was no money in the pipeline for it. The programmes I have announced today—the 14 Chinooks, for example—I have been able to announce because there is real money there; they were never able to make such announcements because of their incompetent management of both the Department and the economy.

Menzies Campbell: Elements of air defence have been present at Leuchars in my constituency for the best part of 100 years, as part of the continuing obligation of all Governments to preserve the safety of their citizens. Because I believe in that obligation on the part of Government to defend their
	citizens, I cannot support the decision not to retain Leuchars as a Royal Air Force base. I believe that decision to be fundamentally wrong, strategically inept and likely to increase risk to our citizens. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his decision to discontinue Royal Air Force use of Leuchars was taken against the advice of the most senior commanders of the Royal Air Force? Finally, the proposals for alternative use of Leuchars by Army units lack dates, details and substance. What cast-iron guarantees can my right hon. Friend give that these promises will be kept and that the money for them will be found?

Liam Fox: First, may I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, in what has been a passionate debate about basing, few have defended their constituency interests as passionately as he has, and that I know he is bitterly disappointed with the decision that has been taken? Across the services—it was not just a decision of one service—we looked to see what we thought was the best decision for defence as a whole. Because we wanted to bring the Army back from Germany, because we thought this was a suitable place in the south of Scotland to have one of the multi-role brigades and because we thought that this was good for the footprint of our defence forces in the United Kingdom, it made sense to coalesce our air force at Lossiemouth. I understand that some people, including my right hon. and learned Friend, will be disappointed, but the feeling across the services was that, on balance, this was the right decision.

Angus Robertson: RAF Lossiemouth is to remain an air station and Kinloss will become an Army base, and the whole Moray community and its supporters are to be congratulated on the amazing and successful campaign to retain both facilities. I also thank those who have sensibly, if belatedly, decided to retain the Moray bases.
	The victory in Moray is tinged with the sadness that RAF Leuchars will not remain an air base. There has been cross-party support in Scotland for the retention of both Leuchars and “Lossie” as air bases. Sadly, the UK Government have rejected that and have instead made massive and disproportionate cuts to the RAF in Scotland. In addition, the Royal Marines are being largely cut and the welcome return of Army units from Germany is uncertain in its time scale. Will the Government confirm today that RAF personnel numbers in Scotland are being cut by more than 50% and that the Royal Marines are being almost entirely cut in Scotland? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in addition, Scotland will lose military facilities, including Fort George, Craigiehall, Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and the air rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss? What support will there be for communities that have been suffering and will continue to suffer economic shocks? Lastly, will he confirm what the configuration will be at RAF Lossiemouth in terms of the Typhoon squadrons, the Tornado squadrons, the RAF regiment, the simulators and total personnel numbers?

Liam Fox: This may be the last touch of naivety I have, but I would have thought that on a day when the Government were announcing a substantial uplift of the defence footprint in Scotland, with an extra 2,500 posts
	in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman might have welcomed something that the Government were doing. This Government have brought stability back to the defence footprint in Scotland and have potentially brought extra investment to parts of Scotland for which he has been clamouring in this House for economic assistance to be given. I thought that, just for once, “Thank you, on behalf of my constituents” might have been words that passed his lips.

James Arbuthnot: We shall have to examine with great care the consequences of the details of what my right hon. Friend has announced today. Some of it will be welcome, not least the certainty it brings, and some of it will be less so. What assurances can he give that, in rebalancing the Army between the regulars and the reservists, we will begin by building up the reservists and only later will we reduce the Army?

Liam Fox: As I have just said, I have been explicit about the fact that in order to get to the regular to reserve ratio we want we will first have to build up the reserves to create that deployability and we will also have to see the draw-down from Afghanistan. I very much hope that the amount we are spending—£400 million in this Parliament; £1.5 billion on the reserves overall—will be capable of being absorbed in that time, but we will be able to take a look at that during the strategic defence and security review in 2015 to check that the progress that my right hon. Friend rightly says will be necessary has been achieved.

Paul Flynn: Does not the disproportionately large size of our Army mean that we take part in an excessive number of wars, with the result that 179 British died in Iraq and 376 died in Afghanistan? Is not the price of punching above our weight that our soldiers die beyond their responsibilities?

Liam Fox: I think the reaction of the House says it all: the hon. Gentleman is in a tiny minority, possibly of one, in holding some of the views he does—[ Interruption. ] It is to the tremendous credit of our—

Ian Davidson: It wusnae me!

Liam Fox: I think the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much on that one.
	We should be honouring those who have been willing to make sacrifices in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They do not do so out of a sense of bravado or some bizarre sense of imperialism, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) would have it, imposed by the UK Government, but because we take our international obligations for global security seriously. We are in Afghanistan because we believe that that is where some of the threats to the United Kingdom came from and we should be thanking our armed forces for the sacrifices that they have been willing to make for our national security.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is an extremely important statement on which a great many Members want to catch my eye, but I am far from sure that I will be able to
	accommodate the majority. I would like to try, but I will need help in the form of single, short supplementary questions.

Bob Stewart: Will the Secretary of State do his very best to restrict the cuts in the Army to those who do not fight and make sure that the people who do the fighting are maintained as much as possible?

Liam Fox: Yes, where possible the Army will look to see where non-front-line personnel can be part of the reduction that has been set out.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: This is about implementing a strategic defence and security review and today’s statement represents a significant reduction in the military footprint in Northern Ireland, the one region of the United Kingdom that faces the greatest security threat at this moment. The Secretary of State will therefore understand my concerns and those of other Opposition Members about that reduction. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will reconsider the reconfiguration of the military footprint in relation to Northern Ireland as regards strengthening both the permanent garrison and the reserve footprint?

Mr Speaker: I shall treat that question as a full sentence with a series of subordinate clauses, but it should not be emulated by colleagues. It is not a competition.

Liam Fox: I fear you might be disappointed, Mr Speaker. We have said very clearly that we will maintain a constant footprint in Northern Ireland and that we are committed to that and to using the bases in Northern Ireland for some of those returning from Germany. The House should remember, however, that the purpose of having the Army in Northern Ireland was not primarily security inside Northern Ireland itself.

James Gray: Unlike others, the people of North Wiltshire, particularly those in Lyneham and Wootton Bassett who said goodbye only last week to the Hercules fleet, will warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that the defence technical training establishment is to move to Lyneham. That is very good news for the area. Will he confirm first that that will mean 1,500 to 2,000 people moving in; secondly, that it will happen reasonably swiftly; and, thirdly, that it is possible that Lyneham will become a hub for defence training in the future?

Liam Fox: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so happy at the announcement about Lyneham. I am also particularly pleased that the phenomenal service not only of those who have served in and around Lyneham but of those who live in the vicinity is being fully rewarded. I confirm that there will be around 1,500 posts initially, although that number may rise over time, and that the initial move will be in 2013-14.

Lindsay Roy: Will the Secretary of State detail in full his strategic reasons for closing Leuchars as an air base?

Liam Fox: As I said, as a whole following the SDSR we needed to reduce from four to three the fast-jet hubs in the United Kingdom. Clearly Marham and Coningsby
	were not really alternatives in that regard and we therefore decided it was going to be either Leuchars or Lossiemouth for the fast-jet basing in Scotland. The view was taken not just inside the RAF, as I have said, but across all the services that there was an opportunity to move an Army presence into Scotland if we had sufficient bases to do so and, in the south, Leuchars was key to that. That enables us not only to have an RAF presence in the periphery of Scotland but an Army footprint—a military footprint—right in the centre. That offers us potential when we are looking for ways of giving business to small and medium-sized enterprises, for example; having that base in south central Scotland is going to be advantageous.

Patrick Mercer: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his emphasis on greater deployability? I have been privy today to a discussion in the Ministry of Defence about which regular infantry regiments might face the axe in the near future. Will he assure the House that that is just speculation and that our bayonet power will not be affected?

Liam Fox: Exactly how the Army develops its plans as we go towards 2020 will increasingly be an issue for the Army, not least with the greater devolution that we have inside the armed forces as a result of the announcements I made in June. I know, having had discussions today and recently with the Chief of the General Staff, that that is certainly one of the issues the Army will be looking at extremely closely.

Meg Munn: The Territorial Army regiment based in my constituency tells me that it struggles to recruit people, particularly those who are unemployed, because of the impact that the time spent with the TA as well as the wages have on benefits. Will the Secretary of State look at this issue with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those who are unemployed and who want to serve can do so?

Liam Fox: The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point and I certainly will undertake to do that because I want to diminish any barriers to serving in the Territorials, including those to people in employment, which I mentioned in my statement, and those to people who are out of work. I am grateful to her for that interesting idea and I will take this forward.

Kris Hopkins: May I thank the Secretary of State for his clear reality check, given the financial circumstances he took over in May last year? In Keighley there is a long-established detachment of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment—now the Yorkshire Regiment. Can the Secretary of State outline the impact that his statement will have on Territorial units such as the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment unit?

Liam Fox: I cannot make a specific case regarding any one Territorial unit, but I can say that the money we are announcing today, which is unprecedented in terms of the reserves and which reverses a decline of recent years, will be welcomed in all parts of the TA. We will of course be looking at the best way of spending that
	money, and I guess from my hon. Friend’s intervention that he will be making one of the early bids in that process.

Dan Jarvis: The statement referred to what was described as a “progressive adjustment of the regular-reserve balance” of the Army. By my maths, that equates to a reduction in the Regular Army of 17,000. This is very surprising to me because just two weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State what plans he had to reduce the size of the Army post-2015, to which he replied:
	“Nothing has changed in our assumptions since the strategic defence and security review.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1222.]
	Can he therefore tell the House when exactly the assumptions changed and why?

Liam Fox: Again, the hon. Gentleman misses the point. What we are talking about is about the deployability of the Army. I want to see the reserves increased so that they can be more deployable. We have such a low level of deployability at present—about 14,000—and I want the numbers to be built up so that the deployable level of the Army is maintained. Perhaps he should look at the experiences of other countries and ask why they are able to have a regular-reserve balance that is quite different from the United Kingdom’s and yet maintain their deployability.

Andrew Murrison: The 2009 TA funding debacle, the ill-effects of which are still being felt, was a result of Labour accepting the easy expedient of cutting reserve forces when cash is tight. Given that our armed forces in the future will have an even greater proportion of reservists, which I welcome, clearly the dangers are enhanced. What will my right hon. Friend do to guard against the TA being cut, as it is relatively easy to cut it, rather than regulars, when funds are tight?

Liam Fox: I have set out that funding today— £400 million in this Parliament and £1.5 billion by 2020. One of the ways in which we can do it is to challenge the Opposition to say whether they would match that funding in the unfortunate event for the country that they ever came back to power.

Hugh Bayley: Will the headquarters of the Yorkshire-based brigade remain in York? What implication will today’s announcement have for the number of regular soldiers in the Yorkshire Regiment, and what is the future of RAF Linton-on-Ouse?

Liam Fox: I am pleased, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be pleased, at the decision that 15 (North East) Brigade will remain in York. That is a decision that we have taken.

Anne McIntosh: It is always delightful when neighbouring colleagues take such an interest in one’s own base. Mindful that north Yorkshire and military establishments there have always played a key role in the defence and security of the
	realm, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance on the future of Alanbrooke barracks and RAF Linton-on-Ouse?

Liam Fox: I thought my hon. Friend might raise that issue and can tell her that there will be no change in the current usage.

David Crausby: How can we be certain that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, propped up by the Liberals, will deliver and maintain the necessary training and support that our Territorials and reserves require, or is this just another way to cut the Army?

Liam Fox: The big difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we not only say that we believe in the Territorials; we are funding the Territorials, whereas they cut the Territorials. Moreover, we believe that having a stronger reserve is one of the ways of increasing the links between the armed forces and the communities of this country. That community linkage should not be underestimated, and it is not easy to put a monetary value on it.

Mike Hancock: As the Secretary of State did not say too much about the Royal Navy, can we take it that the bases in Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth are safe from any cuts? Can he give an assurance that the Navy basing, based on the plan announced earlier this year, will be maintained?

Liam Fox: The reason I did not mention any specific bases is that there are no changes planned in the usage of any of the bases that my hon. Friend mentions.

Julian Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to tap a wider pool of talent and skills in the nation alongside our splendid professional forces. May I suggest that the most important single recommendation in the commission’s report is that we restore proper governance to the reserves, including giving back to the reserve forces and cadets associations their role as a watchdog with an annual report to the House?

Liam Fox: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome to my welcome to his report. It gives me an opportunity to say a heartfelt thank you to my hon. Friend, who not only has had tremendous input into the report, but has championed the cause of reserves for as long as I can remember in my time in Parliament and deserves great gratitude. He is absolutely correct that the ideas he has just reiterated, which are contained in his report, will form a central part of the Government’s course for the time ahead.

Tom Clarke: The Secretary of State referred a few moments ago to what he described as the potential for independence in Scotland. Will he explain what he meant by that?

Liam Fox: I mean that the Labour party was unbelievably beaten by the Scottish Nationalists in the Scottish parliamentary elections on a manifesto from the Scottish Nationalists that they would hold a referendum on
	independence. That is what I meant, and there are serious implications for the Union in terms of defence, were that ever to occur.

Julian Lewis: Heavy weapons are deployed to theatres from only one military port, that at Marchwood in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Marchwood will continue to perform its functions and will not be sold off for a very small amount of money, about a £40 million one-off return?

Liam Fox: I can confirm for my hon. Friend that we do not envisage a change to the usage at present.

John Woodcock: Can the Secretary of State guarantee that personnel currently serving in Afghanistan and Libya will keep their jobs through these changes?

Liam Fox: Looking almost 10 years ahead, it is impossible to predict what changes might take place. That will be a matter for the Army, of course in consultation with the Government. I can say that no one will be made compulsorily redundant within a year of returning from any combat operations.

Anne Main: While saddened by the cuts, I completely understand why the Secretary of State has had to do some of these dreadful things. I urge him to take on board the fact that we need proper procurement so that we do not have the disaster of helicopters languishing, as they did under the previous Government, because of sloppy procurement. I also welcome the 14 new helicopters.

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is no point in any Government wishing that they had more equipment or telling Parliament that they will buy things when they have no idea where the money will come from. That is why the things I have announced today, including the 14 Chinooks, now have a proper budget attached to them, which they never had when part of a wish list under Labour.

Sandra Osborne: These dreadful things feel a bit like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, given the scale of the cuts that the armed forces are facing. How many personnel currently serving in Germany will in future be based in Scotland?

Liam Fox: It is impossible to give an exact number, but I would imagine that between 6,500 and 7,000, or something of that order, of the 20,000 personnel we currently have in Germany will be coming back to the multi-role brigades in Scotland. The precise number and lay-down will be subject to the plans that the Army will bring forward in the months and years ahead, assuming of course that we have the agreement of the local authorities and the Scottish Government.

Mark Lancaster: I remind the House of my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I am confident that the reserve forces will step up and meet the challenge they have been set today.
	Indeed, the investment will be most welcome, in stark contrast to the measly £24 million that the previous Government attempted to save in 2009 when they wanted to cut all TA training for six months. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the practice of late mobilisation, which prevents some members of the TA receiving full deployment training with their attached unit, will cease?

Liam Fox: I will certainly look at the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters. He is right that we face a challenge with the reserves and correctly points to the fact that it will be a major feat for them to reach the time scales and budgetary spend that we have put forward. Like him, I am confident that they will meet that challenge.

Ian Davidson: Will the Secretary of State confirm the exact details of the announcement he made in his statement when he said, “I can therefore now give the go-ahead for the procurement of” a list of things, including “the cat and traps for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers”plural. Does that mean that both carriers will receive cat and traps?

Liam Fox: That is our plan, and I have agreed to my officials now getting involved in contract negotiations. They were not previously able to do so because we were not guaranteed that we would have the budget. When we make decisions of this nature we must ensure that we have the wherewithal to pay for them. Otherwise, as I have said, they are simply a wish list.

John Redwood: As the Secretary of State is proposing to close the large Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers garrison at Arborfield in my constituency, will he ensure that the officials working on the disposal, who aim to make a substantial capital gain for new housing, will understand that some of the money will be needed for transport and educational facilities for the large new settlement they have in mind?

Liam Fox: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and understanding on this issue and know that he will be disappointed that the units are being moved out of Arborfield. We intend to achieve that in a measured way by 2014-15. I am sure that discussions will be ongoing with the local authority on the financial implications he has pointed out.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can I assure the Secretary of State that the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) are not necessarily those of a tiny minority or completely isolated? Does the Secretary of State not accept that it is time that this country took a reality check on the levels of global reach that the armed forces are expected to be able to undertake and the massive cost that we are bequeathing to future generations? Is it not time for a serious defence and foreign policy review on these matters?

Liam Fox: Only the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) could describe two out of 600-odd as not being a small minority. As a country, we have had a good debate about the defence review, and we think that we should be implementing its
	practicalities. The understandings and the strategic aim, as set out in the national security strategy, were broadly welcomed on both sides of the House. It is perfectly correct that we have a debate on the ways in which we carry it out, but there is not a huge debate in this country about the strategic direction that we and our allies are taking.

Penny Mordaunt: Parliamentary questions I have tabled show that there is little understanding in other Government Departments of the contribution that defence, particularly the Royal Navy, makes to fuel security, communications and trade. As my right hon. Friend works to put the defence budget and our defence capabilities on a sustainable footing, will he also make the case that our economic recovery is dependent on increased defence spending?

Liam Fox: Our economic well-being, as an island where 94% of our exports go by sea, is also dependent on the security of the international sea lanes and the Royal Navy’s contribution to that. Some would say that that is not a necessary function because it is outside the United Kingdom, but it is about the protection of UK interests, and I am afraid that in a truly globalised economy it will continue to be that way.

Madeleine Moon: In his recent address to NATO, Robert Gates expressed grave concern about NATO’s increasing inability to defend itself and about our unwillingness to pay the true cost of our own defence, relying on America to fund up to 80% of NATO. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that today’s announcement of 17,000 cuts across our armed forces and an increased reliance on a reserve force that is yet to have the capacity to fill a 30% gap will cause great consternation not only in relation to the defence of the UK but across NATO?

Liam Fox: I have of course had discussions with my American counterpart about some of our ideas. For the United States, the idea that we should have such a ratio between regulars and reserves is nothing unusual. When Bob Gates was criticising some of the countries that the hon. Lady mentioned—and when he looked at the United Kingdom, still spending above 2% of GDP on defence, with the fourth biggest defence budget in the world, and investing in the carrier and the joint strike fighter—I do not really think it was us he had in mind.

Mark Pritchard: My right hon. Friend knows more than most that the first duty of any Government is to defend the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom’s interests. Does he accept that if the Treasury subsequently try to erode the statement that he has made today, and indeed what has been said about planning round 11, that will make it very difficult for this Government to fulfil that very solemn obligation and duty?

Liam Fox: It would be extremely unfortunate were there to be any going back on the uplift that we have had as part of our approach to the next decade. I do not see any chance of that happening given the Treasury’s
	willingness to engage with the MOD once the MOD was able to show that it could manage its budget better and assess its costs better, and given that the National Audit Office will in future be making a very strict audit of what we do regarding our finances.

Diana Johnson: At Hull’s freedom parade on Saturday for 150 (Yorkshire) Transport Regiment, several of the Army vehicles that were going by were plastered with recruitment posters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, the Secretary of State said in the House two weeks ago that there would be no further cuts. When exactly did he decide that he wanted to have an Army that would fill Wembley stadium with probably several thousand seats left over?

Liam Fox: What I want to achieve—I go back to this point again—is a complete Army of reserves and regulars that is genuinely deployable. We have to increase the deployable number because that is what gives us our military effect. There is no point in having bigger armed forces when the budget does not allow us to fully train and equip them, because it is the military effect that we need to preserve. The real betrayal was the Labour party under-equipping our armed forces, as it did so often when it was in government, not the proposals I have put forward today.

Bob Russell: If the previous Government had made this statement, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed seeing the British Army reduced to the size that it was when Colonel Robert Baden-Powell was involved in the siege of Mafeking in the Boer war. The Secretary of State says that the Army will be formed into five multi-role brigades. Will he clarify where 16 Air Assault Brigade and the Colchester garrison fit into that?

Liam Fox: The five multi-role brigades are the core of what the Army will do, but one air assault brigade and one commando brigade will of course remain separate from that shape, so there will be no real difference to the lay-down that my hon. Friend describes. As for the Labour party having introduced such a programme in government, it would never have done so because it had no idea how bad the economic circumstances were that it was creating.

Michael Weir: Although the announcement that 45 Commando will move from RM Condor is not unexpected, it will none the less cause sadness in the local community. The Secretary of State said in his statement that other troops would come to Condor over time. Can he give an indication of the time scale and give an assurance that there will be no gap between 45 Commando leaving and alternative troops taking up residence?

Liam Fox: We looked at this as one of the proposals that we could have announced today with dates attached. The costs, however, were prohibitive in making the moves that I wanted to see. This matter will almost certainly have to be looked at in the SDSR in 2015. Therefore, I would not imagine that there would be any change before 2015-16.

Jack Lopresti: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the welcome additional funding he has announced for the reserve forces will be used specifically for the reserve forces and not by the regular forces for other things?

Liam Fox: That money is earmarked for the reserves, but it is also earmarked for our deployable force. I have said that if we are unable to get the increase in deployability through the reserves alone with the money that I have put in place, there may be a mechanism for an adjustment between the two. We will certainly try to achieve the ratio and the time scale that I have set out today.

Thomas Docherty: I clearly welcome the news that HMS Caledonia will host elements of the Army. I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that a ministerial meeting is possible to discuss the details. Will he confirm which Department will be responsible for funding the transition of those communities from RAF to Army?

Liam Fox: I confirm that we intend to utilise HMS Caledonia as a unit for the MRB. We aim for the moving in to start in 2015-16. Of course, this will be a cross-departmental subject when it comes to looking at the wider costs.

John Glen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the additional funding announced for defence equipment budgets will not be a sufficient uplift post-2014 to achieve the full aspirations of the Future Force 2020?

Liam Fox: We have to look at the defence budget as a whole, not simply the equipment budget, and see where there is leeway. I set out the equipment programmes that we are willing to start spending money on today. I am simply not willing to start to spend on other projects where I can see no budgetary line in the future. After all the pain we have gone through to rebalance the Ministry of Defence budget, we are not going to go back to the bad old habits and recreate the black hole that we inherited.

Denis MacShane: The withdrawal from continental Europe is historic and could be very expensive. Why, then, did the Government turn down the offer of the Polish Government to provide accommodation, training terrain and facilities, all at pretty much zero cost, which would have allowed a permanent alliance there with probably our closest military partner in Europe?

Liam Fox: Although it may appear superficially attractive, I am afraid that none of those things is free. The cost of allowances and of keeping our personnel in Germany amounts to about a quarter of a billion pounds a year to the British taxpayers, and they are pumping about a hundred million pounds a year into the German economy when I would like to see that money pumped into the British economy.
	There may well be not only a chance to have joint training with our Polish colleagues but room for continued training in Germany itself, following discussions that I had with the German Defence Minister last week.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what would happen to the 2,500 extra jobs that he is creating, and the significant investment that UK forces are about to make in Scotland, if Scotland decided to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?

Liam Fox: The arrangements that we have set out today, with the Crown forces underpinning the security of the United Kingdom, will continue as long as the United Kingdom itself exists.

Jim Shannon: TA soldiers from Northern Ireland constitute some 20% of total TA personnel in the UK, both deployed and operational. Will the Minister commit to increasing TA soldier numbers in Northern Ireland?

Liam Fox: If that is how the Army thinks it can best utilise the increased resources it has, it can make that decision. If, however, it decides that it should increase the quality of its training, the bases from which it operates or its equipment, those will be alternative choices for it. I will certainly make the hon. Gentleman’s point to the chiefs.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I can accommodate very few more questions, I am afraid. Time is extremely pressing, and brevity is essential.

Elizabeth Truss: I am delighted that RAF Marham is to be retained, and I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the strategic and economic arguments put by the “Make it Marham” campaign, which includes 37,000 people of Norfolk and nine local Members of Parliament. Under the plan for the Tornado squadrons, how many will be based at RAF Marham?

Liam Fox: There are no changes whatever to the plans that we have previously announced for RAF Marham. I have to say, it would have been very hard to miss my hon. Friend’s voice on the subject in recent months, when there can hardly have been a single occasion when she did not raise it with me vociferously in the Lobby. I congratulate her.

Dan Byles: Does the Secretary of State agree that this rebalancing will work only if we can finally stop viewing the reservists and regulars, and the three single services, as separate organisations and start viewing them all as a combined means to an end?

Liam Fox: I could not have put it better myself.

Caroline Dinenage: My constituents will welcome the news about the 14 Chinook helicopters and the global combat ship, not least because they equate to jobs in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail the delivery times for giving out the contracts and delivering the procurement?

Liam Fox: I hope to be able to do that in the very near future. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that we are now entering a very sensitive period in the negotiations with the company involved, and I would not want to do or say anything that might diminish the MOD’s negotiating hand. However, I will make that information available to her and the House as soon as possible.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Secretary of State for his decision on Lyneham, which will be welcomed in Chippenham and right across the north of Wiltshire. Does he still envisage any land disposals from the base there as part of its transition to the new role?

Liam Fox: No, I do not at the moment.

Philip Hollobone: The welcome step change in TA numbers will require a parallel step change in employer commitment. Given that we have Queen’s awards for business, exports and technology, can we have a Queen’s award for supporting the reserve forces?

Liam Fox: It is very unusual to get two good and constructive ideas for the Government to take away from a session such as this in the House, but I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s idea away. We want to work with employers to make it easier for reservists to be in employment. We want to do that on a voluntary basis, but if necessary we will come to the House with legislation to ensure that it happens.

Laurence Robertson: Can the Secretary of State give me some assurance about the future of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency camp at Ashchurch in my constituency?

Liam Fox: On current plans, no changes are envisaged.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on. We have had contributions from 47 Members. I would like to accommodate everybody, as I usually do, but time is pressing. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence and colleagues.

Local Government Finance

Eric Pickles: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to update the House on the Government’s review of local government finance.
	The past year has seen the beginning of a long-awaited and much needed shift in power—from national to local, and from Whitehall to the town hall—but if localism is to reach its potential, new legal freedoms must be matched by freedom over finance. That, of course, is not a new idea. Reviews, from Layfield in the 1970s and onwards, have emphasised that increasing local financial control is the key to strengthening local democracy.
	Strangely, the previous Government did nothing to reform the system, despite a local government finance Green Paper, a local government White Paper, the balance of funding report, and, of course, the Lyons inquiry. Amazingly, they did not even bother to issue a formal response to Lyons’s 400-page report.
	By contrast, the coalition Government are delivering radical change. Over the past year, we have begun the phasing out of ring-fencing, freed up £2.1 billion from restrictions and simplified more than 90 separate funding streams to fewer than 10. That is real progress, but today we are committed to going further still: to restoring councils’ financial autonomy while ensuring a fair deal for all communities, whether in the north or in the south.
	In the first phase of our review of local government resources, we have focused on local retention of business rates. As the House will know, the Government have already taken action on business rates. We have introduced a more generous small business rate relief scheme, we are making it easier to get that relief without filling in paperwork, and we have scrapped the unfair and regressive ports tax.
	We are now looking at what business rates mean to local councils. Councils in England collect some £19 billion in business rates each year. No sooner does the cash come in than it is gathered up by the Treasury and then redistributed to councils according to a complex formula. That approach has major shortcomings: it denies councils control over locally raised resources; it deprives them of the certainty they need to plan their finances for the longer term; and it creates a disconnection between the success of local businesses and the state of a council’s finances.
	Surely it is common sense for the system to encourage councils to boost local jobs and growth. Radical change is needed, and councils themselves agree. In a major step for transparency, my Department is today publishing every representation made in the recent local government financial settlement. There is a common theme. Councils believe that the current system is complex and opaque. They must talk down their successes and talk up their difficulties in order to secure the best possible deal from Whitehall.
	To address that, mere tinkering—adjusting the formula here, amending the area cost adjustment there—will not be enough. This Government are determined to repatriate the business rates. Today, I am publishing a consultation outlining our proposals. No more will proud cities or historic counties be forced to come to the national
	Government with a begging bowl. Councils will have a greater control over cash, helping them to plan for the longer term. Tax increment financing will let them borrow against anticipated increases in rates, giving them a new way to invest in infrastructure, from transport projects to regenerating town centres. Councils should see a direct link between the success of local businesses and their own cash flow. That will create the right incentives for them to work closely with local businesses.
	I am determined that the transition to a new scheme will be both responsible and fair. The Government’s overriding priority continues to be deficit reduction. In the spending review, we set out the level of resources available for local government for the next four years. In the interests of financial stability, for the first two years of the retention scheme, we will continue to stick to those spending plans, but we will allow local authorities to benefit from any growth in business rates above forecast levels. Beyond this spending review period, we will look to align more closely local authority functions and total business rate income.
	It is also of paramount importance to ensure that our proposals on local government finance are balanced, fair and equitable, creating the right incentives for all areas to grow while protecting the most vulnerable. We propose a number of measures to safeguard them and to achieve that. First, poorer places will share the increase in growth with more prosperous areas. Those places with the greatest dependency should, and will, continue to receive support, while being allowed to keep the products of enterprise, and those places that raise the greatest sums through business rates should expect to make a contribution. A new system of tariffs and top-ups will ensure that we start from a fair base. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the Local Government Association last month, we will ensure that no one will be worse off when the new system is introduced than they would have been under the old system.
	Secondly, as the House will well know, some areas have strong natural economic advantages, such as high-value industries or concentrations of skilled workers. There will be no cap on the amount of business growth from which such councils can benefit. A council will be better off as a result of growth, but if an area benefits disproportionately from a growth in business rates, we propose to introduce a special local levy to capture a share of that benefit. The money raised should be used in the first instance to fund a safety net, which would protect authorities that experience exceptional shocks to their business rate take.
	Thirdly, our proposals include the option of resetting the whole system. If councils no longer had enough resources to meet local needs, the Government could recalculate the level of tariffs and top-ups across the whole system.
	Fourthly, support for mandatory and discretionary rate relief will continue. Rate relief to the needy will be unaffected. National discounts and rate relief will continue to be supported, meaning no adverse change for such groups as charities, amateur sports clubs, voluntary groups, those in hardship and those who are eligible for rural or small firms relief.
	Finally, we have reflected carefully on what our new system means to business. Businesses—the creators of local jobs and wealth—need stability in this process. They need certainty to plan for the long term, so let me
	spell this out in no uncertain terms: local firms will see no difference in the way in which they pay tax, or the way in which the tax is set, as a result of these changes.
	I am placing in the Library a plain English guide so that hon. Members’ constituents can understand what our proposals will mean for them. We intend that business rates should be repatriated in 2013. We will bring forward a local government finance Bill to give our proposals legal effect. The publication of this consultation begins a debate that I hope will be wide-ranging and constructive. I want to work with all local authorities, representative groups and political parties to build a consensus for lasting change. That consensus will be built on putting power back in the hands of local councils and communities; supporting local jobs and local firms; and creating the conditions for renewed, sustainable economic growth. I commend the statement to the House.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. Obviously, we will look closely at the detail of the Government’s announcement today, because on many policy areas under this Government the devil is in the detail.
	Let me make it clear at the outset that we would back a funding system for local authorities that supports jobs and growth and encourages enterprise. In government, we introduced measures such as the small business rate relief to support small businesses and, in consideration of the Localism Bill, we are pushing the Government to go further in devolving powers to cities and councils to enable them to drive economic development. Our amendment is due to be debated in the other place on Wednesday, and I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm today that he will tell his colleagues to support our proposals.
	We have been clear that any funding system for local government must be fair. It has to ensure that every authority has the resources it needs to meet the needs of its communities, but today I am afraid that—plain English or not—the Government have failed to spell that out. How does the Secretary of State plan to localise business rates without taking funding from the pockets of our poorest communities? The Secretary of State may just want to talk about year 1, but we want to talk about year 2 and year 3, and all the years after that. What will the funding system look like then? And will the Secretary of State be able to guarantee today that no council will be worse off in five years’ time as a result of the reforms that he has announced this afternoon?
	It is telling that whenever the Government have been challenged on the long-term effects of their reforms to business rates, they have said that it is up to local councils. What that really means is that, after the first year, the Government are washing their hands of the problem—cutting funding and leaving councils to fend for themselves. We all know how incredibly important this is to local communities up and down the country because, as the Secretary of State knows, business rates make up 76% of the formula grant. Vague, empty assurances just will not cut it. No sleight of hand, temporary transition grants or safety nets can hide the consequences of these reforms. If the wealthiest councils are not giving up the rate they collect locally for redistribution, where will funding for those who rely on redistribution to survive come from?
	The Secretary of State referred, very briefly, to the fact that areas that raise the greatest sums through business rates will still, at least in year 1, make some sort of contribution to less well-off areas, but a report in this morning’s Times said that councils with large yields would only be required to contribute to a safety net in the form of a regional pot. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the redistribution that takes place in year 1—or beyond—will be on a national or regional basis? If it is on a regional basis, and given the size of the business rates yield in Westminster and the City of London alone, many areas outside London and the south-east will be considerably worse off.
	Until the Secretary of State clarifies those points, we will continue to press him on what these reforms might mean. We have heard his assurances before. He assured us that the finance settlement was fair. Then we found out that while places such as Richmond and Surrey Heath were losing less than £10 a head, areas such as Hackney and Liverpool, serving some of the most deprived communities in our country, were losing nearly twenty times as much. He assured us that the cuts to local government funding did not have to mean cuts to services, but even his own councillors do not believe that one. The cuts that we are seeing now, right across the country—to home helps, care services, street cleaning and, yes, to bin collections too—are the consequences of his cuts.
	Today, the Secretary of State still seems to expect us to be satisfied by his assurances—to believe that no council will be worse off. If we do not believe what he says, the Deputy Prime Minister told the same Local Government Association conference:
	“The new system will start on a level playing field. How far you progress from there is entirely up to you.”
	That was backed up by comments by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in response to an Adjournment debate last week. I paraphrase slightly, but he basically said, in answer to a concerned question about what would happen after year 1, “You’ll be okay for the first year, but I really couldn’t specify beyond that.” Are those the sort of assurances to give us hope that there will be fair redistribution in the future for those communities in the greatest need?
	This proposal just does not add up. The amount of funding going to local authorities over the next four years has already been laid out in the comprehensive spending review. Unless the Secretary of State wants to announce today that he is planning to revisit the level of grant he intends to provide to local authorities, will he confirm that, with a fixed pot of money for any council to gain, other councils must lose? If not, will the Secretary of State tell us where the additional revenue will come from? We know which areas will lose out as a result of these changes. It will be the poorest areas, with the most deprived communities and smallest business base, who will be hit with a triple whammy. First, they saw their area-based grants cut and then they had to deal with the finance settlement, which singled them out for the heaviest cuts; and now, to add insult to injury, the Government want to cut their funding to boost the coffers of the better-off councils by localising business rates in a way that is unfair and that will benefit the best-off at the expense of the most deprived.
	However, it will not just be our poorest communities that lose out. Many rural areas and seaside towns—from Southend-on-Sea to Blackpool; in Devon, Somerset and Northumberland—and even Harrow and Enfield in Greater London and Redditch in the midlands will see a loss from these changes.
	In government, we were examining the case for tax increment financing, and we will look closely at the details of the Government’s announcement, but however much the Government spin it, it will not be lost on local authorities that the introduction of tax increment financing comes after this Government have already cut local authority capital funding by 45%, and when they have raised the interest rate at which local authorities can borrow. The Government may couch these reforms in the language of localism, but today’s announcement betrays their real intent. Cutting funding to areas with the highest need does not free councils from central control or empower them: it stops them from doing the things their communities need of them.
	Yes, we want a funding system that supports jobs and encourages enterprise, but not every area has the same ability to attract investment and new businesses. Not everywhere can be Westminster or the City of London. We will look to support incentives to boost enterprise and put councils and communities in control, but fairness must be at the heart of the system.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Please could Members resume their seats? There is a lot of interest in this statement, so I ask Members to make their questions brief and ask only one question. I also ask Members to rise only if they were in the Chamber for the entirety of the statement. I call Mr Heald—

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may wish to respond—

Nigel Evans: I apologise. I call Mr Pickles.

Eric Pickles: You can be forgiven for that mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do not recall a single question in the tirade from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
	I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s welcome, but it seems that it was a pointless gesture to supply her with the statement so far in advance—well in advance compared to what Labour used to do—if she just reads out something that had clearly been typed long before she received it. She should not rely on The Times. She needs to understand what will happen after the first year. The tariff and a levy will continue.
	Perhaps we can look at the issue in these terms. If the system is designed to punish our enemies and reward our friends, what will it mean for Doncaster, which includes the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip and the right hon. Lady? Under this system, Doncaster will do particularly well. It will do better under this system than it has for the last five years. Instead of the right hon. Member for Don Valley trying to invent reasons why things will go wrong, she should recognise that this is a way for her to stand up for the people of Doncaster and explain that it is a
	wonderful place to invest, with a great market and a wonderful rail link. She should get on the side of the people of Doncaster and stop opposing a system that will benefit them.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Nigel Evans: As we were: I now call Mr Oliver Heald.

Oliver Heald: I welcome the message that councils should roll up their sleeves and help their local businesses to create jobs and growth, but can the Secretary of State assure me that the guide and scout hut—I am a guiding ambassador for my area—and all the voluntary bodies that currently get rate relief will continue to do so?

Eric Pickles: I can absolutely give that assurance. My hon. Friend can continue his good work with the guides and scouts safe in the knowledge that the rate relief will remain.

Bob Ainsworth: I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that this system will be used to redistribute wealth from the least affluent areas to the more affluent areas—not necessarily in year 1 but in subsequent years. I listened for an answer to her question but we did not get one.

Eric Pickles: The answer is that roughly £2.5 billion will be transferred from the south to the north of England, and I do not anticipate a significant change to that amount. I was not just picking out Doncaster; places such as Liverpool and Sheffield also do well out of this system—because we are looking at relative growth. The poorer areas will continue to benefit from the levy. Under the present system, any growth or enterprise is immediately siphoned away from the centre. The new system will give places such as Coventry, Liverpool and Doncaster a real incentive by allowing them to keep the extra growth that they generate.

Philip Hollobone: I declare an interest as a serving member of Kettering borough council. In two-tier authority areas, will it be the borough council that sets the repatriated business rate, and will it be required to give a percentage to the upper tier authority?

Eric Pickles: The rating authority—the district authority —will continue to collect, but the county council and district councils will receive a sum of money equivalent to the existing formula grant and will continue to share in the growth. That means that counties and districts will be able to work in partnership with business, and determine between them a proper relationship. There will be no problem with their ability to determine where the money falls.

Clive Betts: I do not think that even the Secretary of State could describe this as a simplification. I am a long-term supporter of the localisation of business rate, but is not the problem that the cut in Government funding to local authorities will mean that by 2013 the totality of that funding will just about equal the business rates, and that if each local
	authority keeps its own business rate there will be nothing left for redistribution to the authorities with the greatest need, and the least ability to raise money? Is not the fundamental problem the fact that he cannot deliver localisation and fairness in the same agenda?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman, who is distinguished in these matters—I am rather hoping that the Communities and Local Government Committee, which he chairs, might consider holding a special hearing on it—is entirely wrong. The levy system is there to pick up various authorities that will enjoy extra growth. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) will contain herself, I shall explain. Different parts of the country will enjoy economic growth at different rates. We will ensure that if areas of the country see disproportionate growth—Kensington and Chelsea, the City of London or the authorities next to Lakeside or Bluewater, for example—the money will be distributed. If we did not do that everybody would go and live there, because the pavements would be covered in gold. It is a natural process. Rather than people being on their bended knees, we will ensure that poorer parts of the country not only enjoy the benefits of economic growth through what they themselves achieve, but benefit from prosperity in the wider community.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the increase in the business rate will still be set nationally, in order to reassure business people?

Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. In order to ensure that the system works, business needs to have certainty and predictability, and because we want growth to be generated, we cannot allow businesses to be used as some kind of favourite cash machine for councils. The rate will continue to be set by formula and from the centre. However, local authorities can work closely with business to bring in new businesses.

David Blunkett: If this is good news, it is certainly a bad day to bury it. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He has already confirmed that the national business rate will be set by the Government, that growth will be held by the authorities that have encouraged it, and that, somehow, it will also be distributed to authorities that do not get growth. Given that last week the Department answered a question from me saying that it did not know what the spend would be as a comparator between Westminster and Sheffield, how does he think that he can answer this question this afternoon?

Eric Pickles: It would be horrible if businesses had to take the roofs off their factories in order to escape local authorities—as I believe the right hon. Gentleman will recall from his time in office. Sheffield does remarkably well out of this process. Over the past five years it has had above-average growth in its rate base, and I see no reason why it should not benefit from this. Basically, this is about ensuring that local authorities can benefit from growth in their business rates and can be encouraged to work with business. Frankly, it is no good being in favour of repatriating business rates unless we are also
	prepared to put in place something that is fair and equitable and will look after the vulnerable. I am very sorry that the two hon. Members from Sheffield do not seem to realise that.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the principles behind this proposal—equalisation and incentivisation—but I am concerned about year 2. The percentages for how the levy operates and how it is redistributed will be critical. What forms of consultation will the Secretary of State engage in, and what scrutiny of the proposals does he envisage?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend raises an important point. She will find waiting for her in the Vote Office a consultation document dealing exactly and precisely with the questions that she raises. It is important to understand that there will be no cliff edge in year 2. We need to get away from the idea of dependency and the continuous search for the bottom—whereby local authorities try to outdo each other in saying how bad things are. We should be able to celebrate the places we live in, show things off with pride and give local communities the benefits of growth.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The Secretary of State will know that the current system of business rates ensures fairness by redistributing income, taking into account levels of need and the differing abilities of local authorities to raise council tax. Will he assure the House this afternoon that authorities such as County Durham that have high levels of need will not lose out under this proposals, beyond year 1, to the tune of about £100 million?

Eric Pickles: I am delighted to report to the hon. Lady that County Durham and the north-east have enjoyed rates of growth in business rates above the English average. From what she said, one might think that somehow councils were in general agreement, but if she looks at some of the submissions that we have received she will see—I will take two as examples—that the Association of North East Councils argues that the north-east received a worse deal than the south-east and that deprivation had risen more in the north-east than in London, whereas Brighton and Hove city council disagrees with the area-cost adjustment for Cumbria, Wolverhampton, Wigan, Liverpool and Oldham, but not for its own area. We cannot have a situation where one part of the country is saying, “Give me more money, and take it from them.” What we need is a system of equality that rewards entrepreneurialism and gets local authorities off their knees.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome this statement, not least because it dispels many of the myths that have been pedalled by the Opposition. The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement that we would bring in a local government finance Bill. Can he say when it is likely to come to the House?

Eric Pickles: That, of course, is a matter for the Leader of the House and the usual channels. However, my hon. Friend is a perceptive Member, and he will
	have noticed that we are hoping to introduce the system by 2013, so we are not talking about the long term.

Steve Rotheram: The American novelist John Updike once said:
	“Government is either organised benevolence or organised madness; its peculiar magnitude permits no shading.”
	Given that the Government show no benevolence towards Liverpool—perhaps people can fill the in blanks for themselves—can the Secretary of State specifically guarantee that Liverpool will not see a real-terms cut in its funding after the first two years?

Eric Pickles: It is a wonderful thing to be quoting John Updike—but listening to the hon. Gentleman, I sometimes think that he might consider himself to be Master of the Universe, from another novel, “The Bonfire of the Vanities”. Let us be clear: which authority would have benefited the most from this scheme? It is Liverpool, which would have done exceptionally well. If the hon. Gentleman had been paying the slightest attention to what I have been saying, rather than working up some smart quotation, he would have realised that Liverpool does well out of this system, because it—

Steve Rotheram: Yes or no?

Eric Pickles: Yes, it is going to do better out of this system, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get those on his Front Bench behind the process, because the system is designed to ensure that proud cities such as Liverpool no longer have to rattle the begging bowl. They can bring more money and resources in, and the people of Liverpool are the ones who will benefit.

Bob Blackman: Today’s announcement has been long awaited. I commend my right hon. Friend on the steps that he is taking, but will he answer one question? If councils or local authorities want to encourage start-up businesses, will they be able to develop their own schemes to allow payment holidays on business rates, to enable them to encourage growth and enterprise in their areas?

Eric Pickles: The answer is yes—[ Interruption ]—although, as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) says from a sedentary position, they will have to pay for it. My hon. Friend and I have long talked about how to regenerate local authorities, moving them forward and giving them some pride. This is a day to celebrate, and the Localism Bill enables such reform to take place. Indeed, such reform is the clearest example of the other side of the Localism Bill: giving people independence through finance. That is something that we should celebrate.

Heidi Alexander: The Secretary of State has made great play of linking the fortunes of local businesses to the revenue of local councils. The previous Labour Government had a scheme—the local authority business growth initiative—which did exactly that. Why was one of his first actions in government to get rid of it?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady needs to try to remember what LABGI was actually like: it was an absolute disaster. Even the Lyons commission said that it was complex, unpredictable and not transparent. Let us remember that under Labour LABGI was chopped and changed. It was a three-year scheme that was stopped after one year, with the second year payments cancelled, and then it ran for two more years, following two consultations. LABGI totally failed to provide for business growth. The hon. Lady should therefore be rejoicing at the scheme that I have announced, because it does all the things that LABGI promised, without being complex, overbearing and, ultimately, a failure.

Mark Pawsey: Businesses in Rugby will welcome the news that their payments to the local authority will be used directly to develop local services and attract new businesses. However, will the Minister confirm that provisions will be in place to ensure that other councils do not raise rates too high and drive firms away or out of business?

Eric Pickles: I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance, because for precisely the reasons that he suggested, we are retaining the existing formula, to ensure that councils benefit with real economic growth not increased taxation.

Andrew Gwynne: On 20 June I raised with the Secretary of State the potential impact of localising business rates on Tameside, which could see a drop in its funding of 35.7% a year. He tried to assure me that that would not happen—at least not in year 1—but can he explain how the system of tariffs and top-ups will work, at no cost to central Government, if prosperous areas are to keep the proceeds but poorer areas are to be fully reimbursed? The maths just does not add up.

Eric Pickles: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might not have given my initial statement the attention that he perhaps should have, because we made it absolutely clear that no council would lose out in year 1—that funding continues—and local councils such as his will be able to enjoy the benefits of growth. Under the current system his local council might get a “Thank you” from the Secretary of State for showing initiative and bringing in new business, but the Government then immediately take the money back. We think that that money should stay with his local authority.
	I remember the hon. Gentleman’s previous question, and I said then that I thought he should defect to us. I still think that he should defect to us, but when he has an opportunity to read the submission document, I suspect that we might be able to arrive at a consensus, because what we are doing is not intended to punish his authority; rather, it is intended to unshackle his authority, for all the potential that it has. If you do not mind my saying so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I really do not think that the counsels of despair from the other side of the Chamber are reflective of the dynamism and entrepreneurialism that exist in local authorities.

Alan Beith: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has included a significant redistributive element in his proposals. However, may I remind him that it remains the case that those
	authorities that have to do most to secure more business investment in the way of infrastructure development still have the least money with which to do it? The local government system really needs to take better account of that fact.

Eric Pickles: The local government system ensures considerable redistribution from more prosperous areas to less prosperous areas. One thing that will very much warm the cockles of the Deputy Prime Minister’s heart is TIF—tax increment financing—which will give predictable incomes from business rates, ensuring that local authorities will be able sensibly and prudently to borrow against that.

Iain Wright: I am concerned that my constituency will lose out by something in the region of £20 million each year, which obviously comes on top of the £5 million following the end of the working neighbourhoods fund, the slashing of council budgets by a quarter and the abrupt cancellation of the housing market renewal initiative. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that funds will flow back into Hartlepool after year 2, and that the Government will invest for the long term in my town, rather than embedding poverty and deprivation?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman should speak up for Hartlepool. [Hon. Members: “He is!”] That is, he should speak up in a way that he did not—or his predecessor did not—when the Labour Government took away area-based grants. When they did that, there was not a whimper from the Labour Benches. It is because of the good services of the coalition that we are able to introduce some kind of transition. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.

Andrew Percy: My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to port rates. The Valuation Office Agency is now going round rating certain berths in Goole as sole-use berths, which means that businesses in my area are going to be significantly affected vis-à-vis other ports on the Humber. Is he going to review the role of the VOA as we move forward on local government finance?

Eric Pickles: Fortunately for the fate of the VOA, it is not accountable to me. It is a constant source of amazement and entertainment, but I hope that it will see reason so far as my hon. Friend’s constituency is concerned.

Clive Efford: Can the Secretary of State tell us what local authorities will be doing to generate growth under the new scheme that they are not doing now?

Eric Pickles: God help us if the hon. Gentleman does not understand that. Local authorities work hard to bring new things into their areas and to ensure that there is a balance. The difference between this system and the existing system is that, at the moment, despite everything that the local authorities do, we take the money away from them and it goes back into a central pool. In future, they will keep that money, which will give them an incentive—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman clearly does not seem terribly familiar with the entrepreneurial system that exists. His counsel of
	despair is that we cannot do anything and should not do anything but continue to stand here with our hands out. That is not really a policy; it is a surrender.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he confirm that, contrary to the call from the Labour party, business rates will not be raised for small firms in my constituency or elsewhere in the country?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. He will recall that we have introduced a simplified system for small businesses, to ensure that in the long term they will not have to fill in forms continuously in order to get the necessary rebate. Another important difference is that, unlike what was promised in the Labour manifesto, we are committed to keeping the formula. We are not going to increase the level of taxation, because to do so would have a disastrous effect for firms across the country and for the small firms in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Mary Glindon: Business rates from retail and commercial developments are at least five times higher than those from manufacturing in the north-east, but manufacturing is worth £7.5 billion to our economy. Is there a danger that manufacturing could lose out as retail and commercial developments are favoured as a better business rate bet?

Eric Pickles: I have obtained the briefing from the Association of North East Councils that the hon. Lady has just cited. It takes no account whatever of the fact that there is a tariff and a top-up. Opposition Members seem to think that we are dealing with some kind of Monopoly board on which local authorities can decide between retail and other developments. The truth is that the market will decide these things. Where the local authorities fit in is by not getting in the way of the market but working with it and deciding to go for growth. Opposition Members cannot honestly believe that local authorities can just sit there and say, “We’ll have a supermarket on every corner.” They cannot seriously believe that that is what the real world is like. Our proposals will remove a lot of the obstacles to growth.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My borough of Thurrock currently collects £92 million a year in business rates, but keeps only £52 million. Much of that contribution is generated by two areas, West Thurrock and Tilbury, which also happen to be the least affluent parts of my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is much fairer if those communities benefit from the business rates that are generated in their area?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. It has been said many times at this Dispatch Box that the problem with the existing system is that it does not take into consideration the difference between poverty and sparsity. There are whole sections of Essex and the Thames corridor where poverty exists but is simply not recognised by the formula. Our system will react very quickly, because the business rate value can show, in
	year, where things are going right and where they are going wrong. Many elements of the existing formula are rather outdated and very unreliable.

Alan Whitehead: I am reminded of Garrison Keillor, the American humorist, who describes Lake Woebegone as a place where
	“all the children are above average.”
	Does the Secretary of State intend to have a year zero in order to achieve the outcome he has described, perhaps in 2013, whereby the present arrangements for business rates would be frozen and the change would start thereafter? Or is he proposing a change before that date? If he is proposing a change after that date, what does he mean by an area that “benefits disproportionately” from growth? Will he define “disproportionate” for us?

Eric Pickles: Of course I would be happy to do that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s joke fell rather flat, but it was funny in retrospect. We will be adjusting the figures in 2013, assuming that we have leave to bring in the Bill, and we will provide an update on the latest figures because there are certain problems, particularly with regard to population. Members should understand that the figures will be based on the fact that relative need was increased to 83% so this is a very progressive settlement in terms of proportion, particularly for areas of relatively low income. Once the figures have been arrived at, we will continue with the new system.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements; anything that can be done to incentivise local authorities will obviously be beneficial. May I just query the section of his statement in which he talked about “a special local levy to capture a share of that benefit”? Local levies can of course sometimes be set at such a level as to create a disincentive. Will he elaborate on the level that he is considering?

Eric Pickles: I shall continue to answer the previous question as well, as I forgot to answer the point about disproportion. We need to understand that business rates grow in different parts of the country at different rates. If we did not have a levy, places such as Westminster, and Hammersmith and Fulham, would grow very quickly, and the amount of money coming in would be in the teens and twenties, although we would normally expect growth to be in single figures. We would therefore need to ensure that a levy was taken off, and we would use a sliding scale to achieve that. I always want to be in a position to ensure that, no matter how fast the growth—and even if it was only a tiny few pence in the pound—local authorities would continue to benefit. The more they grow, the more levy they will contribute to other parts of the country.

Helen Goodman: Taken to their logical conclusion, the Secretary of State’s proposals will mean that County Durham will lose £130 million while the City of London and Westminster will gain £1.5 billion at the end of the process. Does not that demonstrate not only that the system is unfair but that the Secretary of State is further rewarding financial services while kicking manufacturing in the teeth?

Eric Pickles: I want to be absolutely clear: that is simply not going to happen. There will be no movement of millions of pounds from one part of the country to another, except in this sense: the north of England will continue to see money moved from the south—not out of charity—to ensure that, as part of England, it enjoys the growth in national wealth. The idea put about by Opposition Members that this means that County Durham is going to lose £x million is risible. Labour Members need to get themselves a policy, because that kind of opposition is simply pathetic.

Dan Byles: I warmly welcome this proposal, particularly the plain English guide attached to it—would that more Secretaries of State did the same! Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-run Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council in my constituency owns many empty shops in the town of Bedworth? That drags down the town, but the council appears to make no effort to try to fill these shops, get them off the books and get them generating income. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the measure he has announced today will give the council the incentive to do that and get those shops filled?

Eric Pickles: They will now. The folks of Nuneaton are about to see a lot more shops being filled. This is not unusual for any council anywhere in the world—except for England. Only in England do we have an incentive for our areas to get worse. If we were to look at councils in France, Germany and America, we would see the councillors sit down at the beginning of the year and then at regular intervals to say, “We’ve got empty shops; what can we do to fill them? How can we attract national names to come to Nuneaton to make the difference?” I guarantee my hon. Friend that that is exactly what will happen with his local council very soon.

Diana Johnson: I have listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon, most of which I found to be gobbledegook. The thrust seems to be that everyone is a winner in this process. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that, barring an economic miracle in Hull, we will lose about £45 million by 2014-15. That is based on the figures produced in today’s proposal. How is that going to help economic regeneration and lift people in my constituency out of poverty?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady should know better. Frankly, there is no point in just hurling vulgar abuse across the Chamber. She knows, and we know, that under this system a proud city like Hull has a better chance of being able to enjoy the fruits of its labour in bringing in investment. The hon. Lady should start speaking up for the city of Hull rather than decrying it. It is a fine city in the mouth of the Humber; it is time that she spoke up for Humber.

Heather Wheeler: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. The people of South Derbyshire, with their go-ahead South Derbyshire district council, will be at the forefront of bringing this forward. For four years, we have been saying that we are open for business. This is absolutely excellent; this is what we need in the midlands today.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. This system was designed for the go-getter that she undoubtedly is, and it will do a lot of good for her council. We will ensure that this system releases local authorities from the shackles of failure.

Andrew Love: Every time the right hon. Gentleman utters the words “fair” and “equitable”, we become much more sceptical on this side of the House as we realise what is happening under this scheme. While Westminster will roar ahead over the next few years, councils like mine in Enfield in the outer boroughs of London will do very badly, yet many of the people who live in Enfield work in Westminster, and many of the businesses in Westminster are run by people from Enfield so there is an interdependence. What recognition will there be in the system that although many people contribute to the so-called growth in local authority areas, not all of them live there?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Already the London councils are working on a pooling system for the receipts of the business rate, and are fairly well advanced in their planning. The advantage of having pooling across London is that any growth in Westminster—the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it will indeed be great—will be shared with the people of Enfield. I urge him to look at the part of the consultation paper that deals with pooling. He makes a very reasonable point and something clearly has to be done about it. I would expect other parts of the country also to pool so that rich authorities and poor authorities can both enjoy the benefits of growth.

Brandon Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most exciting parts of his statement is the opportunity opened up for local authorities through their freedom so that areas like Great Yarmouth, working with the county council and local businesses, might finally be able to invest in infrastructure and see the development of projects like the third river crossing, which were never possible under the previous Government?

Eric Pickles: That is certainly true, given the ability to have tax increment financing schemes in the projected Bill. That would certainly help my hon. Friend’s constituency, which has not done particularly well out of the current grant system. I think that, with the help of the distribution, this has the potential to provide the good people of Great Yarmouth with an opportunity to develop the front and to look to that additional crossing.

Stephen Mosley: One of the advantages of enterprise zones is that businesses based on them will gain from business rates. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities with enterprise zones in them will not lose out as a result of this proposal?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. It is important for maintaining the advantages brought by enterprise zones that we do not count that money at all so that they get that sum absolutely free of any changes to top-up or tariff.

Gavin Barwell: Can my right hon. Friend clear up some of the confusion of Opposition Members by confirming that the authorities that will benefit relatively from what he has announced today are not those with a large business rate base or those in particularly affluent areas, but those that will enjoy relatively high economic growth in future? At a time when our country is crying out for economic recovery, surely this is a strong and sensible piece of public policy.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend absolutely sums up the case for this change. It will ensure that local authorities enjoy the benefits of growth and that they will be in a position to generate more income directly by their actions.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that linking increased yield of business rates to the activities and performance of councils really will help economic growth, particularly when localism too is thrown into the mix?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. By itself, this change to the way in which the business rate is collected and distributed would not bring about the necessary change. It is only when it is combined with the full effect of the Localism Bill, particularly the power of general competence, that its full importance can be felt.

Marcus Jones: Under my right hon. Friend’s proposals, will councils be given the autonomy to encourage growth within our town centres—for example, by being able to offer incentives on non-domestic rates to fill our empty shops?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Localism Bill enables local authorities to be able to offer those kind of discounts, clearly demonstrating how the Bill and the reform of local government finance combine. I repeat that, despite the hot air and anger, it is our intention as far as possible to move forward on the basis of consensus. I hope that, when Members reflect and look at the consultation document, our proposals will receive enthusiastic support on all sides of the House.

National Policy Statements (Energy)

[Relevant documents:  The Third Report of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Session 2010-12, on The revised draft National Policy Statements on energy, HC 648, and the Government response of June 2011. ]

Dawn Primarolo: I suggest that, for the convenience of the House, motions 1 to 6 should be debated together, and should be voted on at the end of the proceedings.

Charles Hendry: I beg to move motion 1,
	That this House takes note of and approves the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), which was laid before this House on 23 June.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we shall consider the following:
	Amendment (e) to motion 1, leave out from ‘of’ to end and add
	‘the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), which was laid before this House on 23 June, but declines to approve it until it is amended to insert in section 5.14.7 a direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission to consider the impact on the waste hierarchy of energy-from-waste generating stations of over 50MW.’.
	Motion 2—National Policy Statements (Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure)—
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2), which was laid before this House on 23 June.
	Amendment (b) to motion 2, leave out from ‘of’ to end and add
	‘the National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2), which was laid before this House on 23 June, but declines to approve it until it is amended to include energy-from-waste generating stations to the list of covered technologies in section 1.8.1.’.
	Motion 3—National Policy Statements (Renewable Energy Infrastructure)—
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which was laid before this House on 23 June.
	Amendment (a) to motion 3, leave out from ‘of’ to end and add
	‘the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which was laid before this House on 23 June, but declines to approve it until it is amended to omit energy-from-waste plants’.
	Motion 4—National Policy Statements (Gas Supply Infrastructure And Gas And Oil Pipelines)—
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4), which was laid before this House on 23 June.
	Motion 5—N ational Policy Statements (Electricity Networks Infrastructure) —
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5), which was laid before this House on 23 June.
	Motion 6—N ational Policy Statements (Nuclear Power Generation)—
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), which was laid before this House on 23 June.

Charles Hendry: This debate is intended to fulfil our commitment to parliamentary approval of the national policy statements. The motion constitutes a further important milestone in the Government’s programme to secure affordable low carbon energy which will make the UK a truly attractive market for investors in energy infrastructure.
	Let me briefly explain the background to the national policy statements and the purpose of each one. I shall, of course, be happy to take interventions as I go through them. Members may find it convenient to concentrate on the subjects individually, but I am mindful of the number who wish to speak in the debate.
	The national policy statements do not contain new energy policy or change the standard for consenting projects, but they set out clearly and for the first time the national policy that must be considered before the granting of consent to infrastructure projects that are examined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and, when the Localism Bill has been enacted, by its successor. The policy statements are critical to the new fast-track planning system that will encourage developers to embark on energy projects without facing unnecessary hold-ups. It will also ensure that local people can have their say about how their communities develop, and that decisions are made in an accountable way by elected Ministers.
	We urgently need new electricity-generating infrastructure to replace our ageing power stations. If we are to meet our ambitious carbon targets, we must electrify much of our industry, heating and transport sectors. That could mean doubling our electricity generation, with about 60 GW of new capacity coming on line by 2025. Over the next 10 years, a quarter of our generating capacity will close as old or more polluting plants close. As the reserve margin of spare generating capacity falls, the risk of interruptions to our energy supply rises.
	More than half the new capacity that we urgently need should be met with renewable energy, and a significant proportion of the remaining capacity should be met with other low-carbon technologies. That is a real challenge. Business and industry tell us that investment in infrastructure will help them to create growth and jobs. By setting out the need for new energy infrastructure, including a mixed portfolio of electricity generation, the national policy statements will unlock that investment and provide market certainty.
	As Members will know, having considered the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report and responses to the first public consultation in 2010, we made changes to the draft national policy statements and accompanying documents. Given the nature of the changes that we made, we decided to consult on the revised draft national policy statements between October 2010 and January 2011. Alongside our public consultation was parliamentary scrutiny of the revised draft statements. That work was undertaken by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which considered the changes from the drafts that were consulted on by the previous Administration. The Committee then published a report, setting out 18 recommendations on the revised drafts.
	We intend the national policy statements to be approved if that is the will of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will designate them as quickly as is reasonably practicable. It has been suggested that designation should have been delayed until after we had reviewed them in the light of the electricity market reform White Paper which was published last week, but we do not think that delay is either necessary or desirable, as the policies have been developed in parallel to ensure they are consistent.

Paul Flynn: Does the Minister consider it wise to omit any reassessment of the costs of nuclear power, given that many countries have abandoned their nuclear power plans in the wake of Fukushima? Has he thought about a possible increase in increase costs, especially to guard against a natural disaster or a terrorist attack?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman, who understands these issues, will be well aware that the national policy statements concern not the costs of different technologies, but the planning consents for them. If companies decide that the costs have risen and are not affordable, and that they will not achieve a return, they will not go ahead with the investment, but that is not the subject of this debate. However, we have conducted a thorough assessment of the lessons that need to be learned after Fukushima to determine whether any adaptation is needed in the policy statements. That is why we have reflected further, and have taken more time to consider them.
	The overarching national policy statement, EN-1, sets out the need for each of the different energy infrastructure technologies. It makes clear that we need a diverse mix to provide affordable, clean energy. It explains the Government’s policy on clean coal with carbon capture and storage and the need for gas and biomass electricity generation plants to be “carbon capture ready”, and sets out the part that renewables and new nuclear power stations will play in meeting our emissions reductions targets.

Albert Owen: As the Minister will know, the Select Committee was anxious for wave and tidal generation to be included in the policy statements. When does he intend to produce a national policy statement covering those important new technologies?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman knows that we attach tremendous importance to the potential of marine technologies. He will also appreciate that the national policy statements relate to major infrastructure projects involving more than 50 MW. There is currently no possibility of any marine technology of that scale. The national policy statements can be adapted in due course and will be reviewed over time, and as technologies of that scale emerge, it will be possible for a policy statement to be established. However, the schemes that we are currently seeing are much smaller, and can therefore be dealt with through the other planning procedures that cover them.
	The overarching national policy statement explains the need for transmission networks, which are vital to get electricity into the grid—from locations where there is no existing network infrastructure—and to consumers. It also explains the need for gas and oil infrastructure to
	ensure that we can take advantage of diverse supply options for gas and oil. Some fear that our policies will lead to a “dash for gas”. We understand their concerns, and we will keep a close watch on the electricity generation that is coming on line. If in the future we decide that our policies are not having the desired effect, we will review them, but the national policy statements are not the place for that review.

John Robertson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out earlier, other countries are giving up nuclear power, and they will make a “dash for gas” to meet their base load. Has it occurred to the Minister that we may have to do the same in relation to our own base load?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have considered that, and I look forward to giving evidence to him and his colleagues on the Select Committee tomorrow morning.
	This is a permissive framework, which involves planning consents. It is not a case of people going ahead and building the plants. A range of other investment decisions need to be made in order for the final decision to be made, but at this stage what is critical is the establishment of a structure so that people understand how the planning system will work.

Alan Whitehead: The number of gas-fired power stations that are under way, constructed or at an advanced stage of planning substantially exceeds the figures set out in EN-1. Would the Minister be prepared to table amendments to it, in the light of the reality of actual construction as opposed to what is in the document?

Charles Hendry: I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that will not be necessary. When the decision is finally made, it will be legitimate to take account of the fact that if the disbenefits were considered to outweigh the benefits, consent would not need to be given. If it were felt that consent was being given to too much higher-carbon generation capacity and therefore that environmental issues—low-carbon issues—were seen to be more important, that would be a material factor to be taken into account. That can already be done through the system. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that we have a significant amount of consented gas for which there is not currently construction. That also brings us to part of the problem: at the moment, we are not seeing anything like enough investment and construction work in our energy infrastructure.

Mark Tami: As nuclear stations take 10 years to build and the older stations are closing, and as renewables are not generating as much energy as the Minister would like, is it not inevitable that gas will fill the vacuum?

Charles Hendry: There is a continuing need for gas, and the hon. Gentleman has set out the time scales accurately. We face a challenge: we have to get twice as much investment in our energy infrastructure in every year of this decade as was achieved in the last decade.
	We need a step change in those investment levels, but as he rightly says, there will be a continuing role for gas as well.

Iain Wright: Is the Minister worried about China? It is continuing with its nuclear programme, and about half the world’s nuclear generators will be built in China in the next 20 years or so. Skills, capability and resources will therefore gravitate towards the east. Will that place difficulties on our ability to keep the lights on?

Charles Hendry: We all have to be very mindful of the situation in China. In the time it will take us to build one nuclear power station in this country, it will be building dozens. We have to understand the pressure that that creates for the construction process and the skills challenges. However, I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and have seen, along with him, the investment going into nuclear skills there, and more generally into the low-carbon economy, and I am very encouraged by what I have seen not only in Hartlepool, but in many other places around the country: businesses, councils, trade unions and others are working together to ensure we have the necessary skills to deliver the construction of plant.
	This is not the time for explicit single-sector emissions caps. We recently set the level of the fourth carbon budget in line with the Committee on Climate Change recommendation. This amounts to a 50% reduction in emissions against 1990 levels for the period between 2023 and 2027. It would be wrong to introduce new planning conditions for one part of one sector in the national policy statements when we have already introduced legislation on emissions for all sectors together. Each technology-specific NPS sets out particular issues that apply. As the need case in the overarching NPS states, it is vital to have investment in clean fossil fuels to ensure that we have a secure supply of diverse energy generation.

Caroline Lucas: The Tyndall Centre has said that even the targets of the fourth carbon budget would provide only a 56% to 63% chance of avoiding a 2° C rise in average global temperatures. Is it not therefore the case that even the fourth carbon budget is not setting the right targets?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Lady knows what has happened. The Committee on Climate Change has made recommendations to us, and we have responded to them, and we were widely seen as one of the world leaders in this respect; the United Kingdom is well ahead of most other countries. It would be helpful if she would sometimes welcome the changes and the advances being made, rather than always saying it is not enough. It is appropriate to recognise in the course of these debates that Britain has shown real global leadership. There is cross-party agreement on that, and it should be welcomed.
	The fossil fuels NPS—EN-2—explains what drives site selection for power plants and the practical requirements for carbon capture and storage. Together with relevant bits of EN-1, the EU emissions trading scheme and our own policies on an emissions performance standard, it will give developers confidence that there is a stable regime under which they can invest in the fossil-fuel
	generating stations that are necessary to provide the essential back-up for intermittent generation from some forms of renewable energy, or perform as low-carbon generators themselves, fitted with carbon capture and storage.

Malcolm Wicks: Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the carbon capture and storage programme? When does he expect the first major CCS project to be up and running cleanly?

Charles Hendry: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s interest and expertise in these matters. As he knows, we took on some of the work of his Administration by allocating an extra £1 billion for the first full-scale CCS project—the largest amount any Government anywhere in the world had given to a single project. Over recent weeks, we have been negotiating very carefully with the interested parties about how we can deliver what we want in terms of the knowledge transfer and output for the CCS project, based on what they believe is achievable for the funding. Those discussions are ongoing, and we hope that they will be brought to a conclusion with the first plant being operational by 2015.
	We have also said there will be three other projects, and we have evolved the policy we inherited from the previous Administration by saying that one of them should be on gas, in recognition of the long-term role gas is likely to play and the significant interest in this country in developing gas technologies. At a time when other Governments are slipping back their time scales for CCS, it is encouraging that the UK programme has been moving forward. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will warmly welcome that.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned China. Does the Minister share my concern about the number of coal-fired power stations still being built there, in that the development of that CCS technology may be accelerating in places other than the UK and we may lose out on the opportunity to export some of the skills and expertise that we might otherwise be able to export if things were to move a little faster here?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When the original competition was set out by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the thinking behind it was that we should be developing technology in this country that we could sell to the Chinese. The reality is that the Chinese are rapidly trying to develop technology that they want to sell to us. We have a strong opportunity to lead. We have some of the world’s leading technological and academic experts, and we have fantastic sequestration facilities in the depleted oil and gas fields in the North sea. The UK should be in a position to lead in this area, but we are mindful of the point the hon. Gentleman makes: other countries are equally determined to get there ahead of us. That is why the focus on delivering those four plants has been so important.
	The renewables NPS—EN-3—addresses sustainability of biomass, how waste incineration plants fit into the statutory waste hierarchy by using waste that would
	otherwise go to landfill, and specific impacts of onshore and offshore wind farms, including visual impacts, noise from onshore wind farms and collision risks for birds and bats.

Andrew Love: As the Minister has just suggested, incineration is considered in the renewable policy statement, yet it produces significant quantities of CO2. Should it not be redesignated under the fossil fuel category?

Charles Hendry: It is important to put this in its proper place in the waste hierarchy. There is a clear commitment between us and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The waste policy it has recently produced sets out that incineration should be considered for electricity generation only after all other options, such as recycling and reuse, have been looked at. We also recognise, however, that it is better to try to find ways of using it for electricity generation than to put it into a landfill site with the inevitable consequence of the methane gas it will emit, which is many times more dangerous than CO2. This needs to be seen as part of the waste hierarchy, to which we are absolutely committed, but we must also recognise that the generation option is better than going down the landfill route.

Nicky Morgan: I am encouraged by what the Minister has just said, but would it not be better if the statement—or the Minister now, on the record—were to make that clear? He will be aware that many constituents throughout the country are very unhappy about the idea of having incinerators located near them, and if we want to move to a low-carbon economy we must take people with us.

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a strong case for smaller, local waste facilities because people understand the connection between them and their local community and the waste it has produced. We are also seeing a range of new technologies coming on, such as pyrolysis and the gasification process, which are very clean technologies and which we are very keen to encourage. The national policy statements apply only to larger facilities. My concern about any suggestion of taking this element out of the national policy statements is that the Infrastructure Planning Commission would then have no guidance whatever in making a determination on a large plant. That would have create havoc; it would be much worse for local communities and it would create many additional anxieties. Therefore, the way in which we have incorporated it in the statements, which are to be read in conjunction with the waste review, is the right way to approach this in a holistic manner.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister is discussing renewables and technology. Is he not concerned at the relatively weak state of British manufacturing’s capacity for solar generation, either for hot water or for electricity? Does he envisage Government intervention to try to strengthen those necessary and valuable industries in order to take advantage of a very fast-growing market?

Charles Hendry: Again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have made changes to the feed-in tariff to focus on microgeneration, as was the original
	intention. The nature of the tariff will drive forward significant investment in solar. We have to recognise that the UK is not a game changer in the pricing structure of solar, because our market will always be smaller than that of countries where there is greater potential for solar. Nevertheless, we want solar to achieve what it can in this country, and we want an industry to grow up to support that and deliver the products.

Andrew George: The Government have a coherent and ambitious plan for major renewables. In addition to the green investment bank, the energy market reform and the fourth carbon budget, how will the national policy statement aid genuine renewables more than the other energy sources covered by these statements?

Charles Hendry: The purpose of the national policy statements is to facilitate the planning process. What we hear time and again from people keen to invest in different parts of our energy infrastructure is that the planning process is one of the biggest blocks to their being able to make progress—huge amounts of renewable energy are blocked in the planning process. The statements are intended to give greater clarity to investors and to those who are making the decisions, so that our process can not only be much faster and much more constructive, but can provide appropriate engagement for local communities, because we are equally committed to ensuring that their voice is heard in decisions on how their communities evolve.

Iain Wright: rose —

Charles Hendry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, given the number of Members who wish to speak in this debate, it is fair to take only one intervention from each Member.

Mike Weatherley: rose—

Charles Hendry: And here is another one.

Mike Weatherley: We have been talking about waste disposal, particularly in the nuclear industry. The statement refers to underground storage, which is unproven but technically feasible. Does the Minister agree that it is pointless going ahead with a nuclear programme unless we have somewhere to dispose of the waste?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Minister rises to his feet, this would be a good point for me to inform the House that this debate is due to end at 9 o’clock, there have to be wind-ups at the end and 18 Members in the Chamber have already indicated that they wish to take part. There is going to be a time limit and, at the moment, it is getting shorter and shorter. So those who wish to speak might want to hold back on their interventions.

Charles Hendry: Thank you for your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be very observant of them in considering which interventions to take.
	My hon. Friend does make an important point. We are working with communities that have volunteered to take forward some of this work to see whether there are
	appropriate locations for a waste disposal facility, and we are committed to making this happen. We have expressed an ambition that we should have such a facility open 10 years earlier than previously planned—by 2029 rather than at the end of the 2030s. I hope that that will show to him and others our commitment in this area.
	On the renewables national policy statement, we do not specify areas in which to locate wind farms, nor have we placed limits on generating capacity in each area, although, as in all cases under the Planning Act 2008, it will be open to the Infrastructure Planning Commission—or, through the Localism Bill, to Ministers—to refuse an application for consent if it considers that the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits. To complement the electricity generation national policy statements, policy statement EN-4 addresses requirements for gas and oil infrastructure and EN-5 addresses those for electricity networks. Changes in the pattern of supply and demand, and shifts in technology mean that we will need more of both those types of infrastructure in the coming decades.
	Electricity transmission networks most familiarly mean overhead lines supported on pylons, and it is only that type of connection that requires Planning Act consent. Considerable concern has been expressed about the impact on landscapes of an increasing number of networks. The overarching NPS and the electricity networks NPS make it clear that developers should consider undergrounding or subsea cables for transmission networks. The electricity networks NPS also explains that although it would be preferable for grid connections to be applied for at the same time as the generating infrastructure it is associated with, there are circumstances where this may not be economically sensible. We have also stated that the Holford rules should be followed when developers are planning the routes of proposed overhead lines. That actually strengthens the policy, because before this NPS the use of the Holford rules by developers was voluntary.

Tessa Munt: I hear what the Minister says. I hope that once the IPC has some guidance, perhaps from the failure of the KEMA study, Sir Michael Pitt and the IPC will have some other way of considering the undergrounding and subsea options on the basis of costs that are realistic and that they will be judged against the work that has been done, both in this country and abroad.

Charles Hendry: I could sense that my hon. Friend was going to intervene even before she had risen to her feet, because she has been such an assiduous campaigner on these issues. That work is being taken forward. We want very robust evidence about the alternative costs, and I hope that she is reassured by my words about the need to consider alternatives.
	The sixth NPS is on new nuclear power stations. It sets out the issues to be considered as part of the planning process where new nuclear power stations are proposed; a number of other matters are, of course, considered under other regimes. It also identifies the eight sites that we have concluded are potentially suitable for new nuclear development. That provides an important degree of clarity for industry and communities over the next few years. However, any application to build a nuclear plant on those sites still needs to go through the
	same rigorous processes as any other proposal under the Planning Act. The nuclear NPS also clarifies how the IPC should consider any issues regarding waste during its examination of an application and the role of the regulators and their relationship with the IPC. In addition, we have set out how applications for non-listed sites are treated by the IPC.

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend knows that my constituents are disappointed that Dungeness was not included on the list of eight sites approved in the NPS. If there were problems with one or a number of those eight sites, would there be scope for allowing a site such as Dungeness to come back into play?

Charles Hendry: We were not limited to eight sites in the process that we went through. We decided that eight of the sites that developers had proposed to us were appropriate and could realistically be developed by 2025. Our concerns about Dungeness related to the special area of conservation, which is protected by law, and we were not persuaded that we could comply in that regard if the site was being developed. We have said that in every other respect Dungeness fulfilled the criteria, so if the special area of conservation issues can be satisfactorily resolved there is no reason why Dungeness could then not come forward separately.

David Mowat: Will the Minister give way? Just once more?

Charles Hendry: Just once more then.

David Mowat: I am enjoying the Minister’s comments about nuclear. He may have seen the recent Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—POST—note on carbon emissions, which stated that over the life cycle nuclear produced one third as much carbon as solar. Is that properly reflected in the thrust of these statements in their entirety?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend raises important issues, but they are not addressed in the national policy statements. The statements are about the planning rules—the background to which decisions on new applications should be considered. There is considerable debate, which he will appreciate is being led inside and outside this Chamber, on the relative low-carbon merits of different technologies.
	Following events at Japan’s Fukushima plant in March, we asked Dr Weightman, the UK’s chief nuclear inspector, to produce an independent report on the lessons to be learned from the incident and the implications for our nuclear industry. The interim report was published in May and a full report is due in the autumn. We have now carefully considered the planning policy in the national policy statements in the light of the findings of the interim report. We particularly note Dr Weightman’s conclusion that he sees no reason, in considering the direct causes of the Fukushima accident, for curtailing the operation of nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities in the UK.
	The interim report does not identify any implications for the strategic siting assessment of new reactors and we do not believe that the final report will, either. That
	does not change the guidance within the nuclear national policy statement, which says that the Infrastructure Planning Commission should consider flood risk, including from storm surge and tsunami, and should consult the nuclear regulators as part of that consideration. We are satisfied, therefore, that the nuclear national policy statement can proceed.
	Approval and designation of the national policy statements are vital steps on the path towards our 2050 targets. By setting clear and consistent policies on energy infrastructure, development consent decisions can be made on a firm basis that is transparent to all, but this is true only when national policy statements are designated. While they remain in draft, the Infrastructure Planning Commission and other decision-makers can treat them only as “relevant and important”, not as the primary documents they are intended to be. Although the Infrastructure Planning Commission—or its successor—would consider them, until they were designated developers would not be given the confidence in Government policy that would encourage investment. Approval, followed by designation, will make the national policy statements primary documents. They will therefore provide certainty and stability for developers and investors looking to make new infrastructure proposals.
	The national policy statements for energy infrastructure are a vital component of the coalition’s programme for government. They will promote investment in energy infrastructure, delivering growth and jobs. They will help us to achieve our carbon emissions targets and they will secure our supplies of affordable low-carbon energy. I commend the motion to the House.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased we are debating the national policy statements after we discussed them in draft form in December. Our debate then was short and our debate today will be even shorter—I hope the Minister joins me in deeply regretting that fact. We cannot do justice to the number of national policy statements and to the Members present in the Chamber, who will, I suspect, have roughly an hour and a half for debate once I have concluded my remarks, and that is terrible.
	The final national policy statements, if they are approved by the House, will be critical in achieving a green, affordable, secure and diverse energy future. The building blocks for that future were, as the Minister suggested, shaped under Labour and we want them to be put in place without any further delay. Much has happened since our debate in December. We watched the terrible incidents in Fukushima unfold and, rightly, across the globe, across Europe and across the UK, we sought to see what lessons we needed to learn. The Minister is right to say that in the UK we did not rush to judge but carefully examined our sites, a process that is ongoing under Dr Weightman, while all countries across the EU carried out their own stress tests. Understandably, and with our support, the Minister delayed the NPSs, including the one on nuclear, to allow proper consideration to be given to those events.
	We agree firmly with the conclusions reached in EN-1 and EN-6: nuclear, as a low-carbon proven technology, could play a key role in diversifying and decarbonising our energy and in meeting our climate
	change objectives. It is a proven low-carbon technology that can be deployed on a large scale and could complement carbon capture and storage, if it is successful, renewables and fossil fuels as part of the mix. The eight identified sites in EN-6 are potentially—I stress potentially—capable of development by 2025. Many in the green movement, although not all of them, now recognise these and other benefits of nuclear generation, although those who have long been opposed to the technology should be respected for their views, too.

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend will know that there are plans in the document to build new nuclear power stations at Oldbury and Hinkley Point. If those power stations are built, large areas of Wales will fall within the diameter that has been set for the no-go area at Fukushima. Should not the people of Wales be fully consulted on those plans, in the interest of localism, before they go ahead?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I would expect the people of Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales to have a full input and I am sure that the Minister, when he concludes, will be able to confirm that that is exactly what would happen. My hon. Friend’s point is very well made: such a decision cannot be made unilaterally and there has to be input from across the regions, too.
	I said that those who doubt the technology should be respected, and not long ago the Secretary of State was one of those doubters. Confronted with the evidence and, I guess, with office, he has changed his tune. I must tell the Minister that the manic contortions of the Secretary of State over the financial support for nuclear have surpassed those of a Chinese acrobat in recent weeks. Last week, during the electricity market reform statement, when challenged by his party colleagues, he laid out three financial mechanisms that could support the development of new nuclear facilities alongside other low-carbon technologies. He did that to explain to the House that there was no subsidy for nuclear.
	As the Secretary of State has come out of the closet on nuclear, he ought to stop trying to hide his embarrassment. The expansion of low-carbon technologies does not come free and they will all—onshore and offshore wind, biomass, future wave and tidal, CCS and nuclear—require some support and market intervention to drive in the levels of capital required. The medium to long-term protection that that gives through the diversity of energy security is in the interests of UK plc and we support it.
	We do not, however, support sleight of hand or the appearance of double dealing. The carbon floor price announced in the recent Budget is a pretty poor way of generating the new low-carbon investment that the documents envisage. It was, in fact, a back-door windfall for existing nuclear and renewables to the tune of £1 billion and a far from stealthy Treasury tax grab of £740 million in 2013-14 rising to £1.4 billion in 2015-16. That decision shook confidence in DECC’s grasp of electricity market reform, shocked some of the big six utilities on which the Minister explicitly depends for the level of new investment required and it hammered the energy-intensive users, risking exports of jobs abroad
	along with carbon leakage. It gives carbon tax a bad name and shows who is in charge of DECC policy: the Chancellor.
	On EN-6, although it is good to see the groundwork physically being dug for the first of the new generation of stations at Hinkley Point, will the Minister tell us when he anticipates that the first such station will be completed and online? Can he give us an indication of the dates for bringing the others online? Will he please not say that it is entirely up to the market, as that would suggest that he has not met any nuclear operators over the past year? He has, as I have, and I am sure he will have some idea of when that will happen.

John Robertson: Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, about the grid for some of the new power stations and, for that matter, renewables and about how the energy will get into the system for people to use?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Very much so. That is the benefit of having the package of NPSs to consider tonight, as we need to deal with the grid connectivity, too, to which I shall return in a moment. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
	We are also considering EN-3 on renewable energy. Since we last debated the draft NPS on renewables, we have learned that the UK has dropped out of the top 10 global league tables for investment in renewables. That is quite a feat for the greenest Government ever. We have not just slipped out; we have bombed out. We have crashed out from having the fifth highest inward investment according to global rankings at the end of Labour’s Administration to having the 13th, according to the Pew report, in just one year. Today’s NPSs, including that on renewables, are part of the end-of-term report for the greenest Government ever, which states: “Must do better. After early promise, fails to live up to expectations and has gone backwards in many areas.”
	The renewables document, EN-3, however, will succeed because it is built on very good foundations. It is welcome that the Government have made good on Labour’s ports competition and have started to build the manufacturing, distribution and servicing base in our ports, which will see a massive boom in our offshore wind. That builds on the consenting regime for offshore that was already under way under Labour. Those measures will provide crucial green jobs in manufacturing, engineering, design and maintenance up and down hard-pressed coastal regimes and in supply chains across the country, so they are to be welcomed. With streamlined planning in place, we will have the potential to create several hundred thousand jobs and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by hundreds of millions of tonnes as we head in the direction set by the previous Government.

Andrew Love: An answer to a question in January showed that incineration produces more CO2 than gas-fired facilities. Are we not giving incineration an incredibly favourable position by including it in the renewables statement rather than in the fossil fuel statement?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s question. The difficulty is the broad scope of the term “waste incineration”, as many different types and technologies come under that category. The issue is addressed in some of the amendments, including
	two tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), to which I shall return. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point and we have to be very confident that we are not going backwards by including certain things.
	Let me direct Ministers’ attention to the bold statement in EN-1 that
	“the Government supports a move across the EU from a 20% to a 30% emissions reduction target by 2020.”
	That is very good, so can the Minister explain in his concluding remarks why his party’s Members in the European Parliament voted against those same proposals two weeks ago? It is so disappointing that wave and tidal power have taken a back seat in the Government’s plans again despite this national policy statement. Given the slashing of Labour’s marine renewables funds, the shelving of any proposals whatever—big or small—for the Severn estuary, the worrying noises from within the industry, in which people are looking to invest abroad, and the long wait for wave and tidal technologies to be properly recognised in the renewables obligation certificates fund, it is no wonder that the head of RenewableUK described the £20 million, out of a £200 million low-carbon innovation fund, that was given to the Government’s flagship marine scheme as
	“a drop in the ocean”.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point about marine technologies. The Secretary of State has said that the mature technologies do not require a subsidy or any Government support, but does my hon. Friend agree that the technologies he is talking about have yet to be developed and will never become mature unless they get the Government support that is needed?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely key point. If these technologies are to get up to large industrial and commercial scale, they need support; that cannot be done in any other way. Labour showed that with what it did with offshore wind and we need to replicate that in this regard. Hon. Members should look at the way the Scottish Government are driving ahead with these technologies in terms both of consents and of the ROC structure. Wales has immense potential but we also have potential all around the English coast.
	In light of the documents, what specific plans do Ministers have to make sure that the maximum possible benefits from the huge and imminent expansion of renewables, notably in offshore wind but also in onshore wind as well as in other renewables such as biomass, large-scale wave and tidal technologies—if we get to that level—and energy from waste, stay in the UK in the form of jobs, skills, training, manufacturing, distribution and economic growth? The Secretary of State’s repeated warm words about green jobs will generate no dividend whatever if all the relevant technology and skills are imported. How will the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) help Mabey Bridge of Chepstow —a company he knows very well from his recent welcome visit to open its new turbine shaft manufacturing plant—to secure contracts from the many multinational companies that are currently sourcing many of their parts, labour and skills overseas?
	The same question has to be asked in relation to the other national policy statements about nuclear, carbon capture and storage and all the other technologies in
	which we could be developing green jobs in manufacturing and a world-leading competitive edge in green expertise and knowledge. The purpose of our amendment (c), which was not selected—I understand why, Madam Deputy Speaker—was simply to remind the Minister to get a move on and do what he promised. We were promised the green economy road map in April, but April came and went, as did May and June, and here we are in July, with the House rising tomorrow or the day after. Did he mean April 2012, perhaps? A year that started with a tragic decision and lost jobs in relation to the Sheffield Forgemasters’ loan was depressed further by the UK’s falling out of the global top 10 for renewables investment and the unseemly mess of the feed-in-tariffs fiasco. It is now ending with the Minister having lost the green economic road map. Perhaps he is waiting for the return of a Labour Government to get us back on the road to green jobs; we would love to oblige. If not, will he just do what he said he would do and show us his road map?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend will have heard the point I raised with the Minister about the relative weakness of the British renewables industry. Does my hon. Friend think that a lot more could be done through local planning guidelines on new buildings to ensure the generation of electricity and of course more hot water from solar methods, which would in turn generate industry in this country?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I entirely agree. I have huge support for what my hon. Friend suggests for energy generation in individual houses and on estates—driven by local authorities and with private landlords. It is also about making sure that people benefit from the measures we put in place. It should not be just a one-way channel with the big-six companies providing energy, but with energy being sent the other way.
	On carbon capture and storage and carbon capture readiness, the EN-2 document is good as far as it goes, but what is less good is the Government’s progress to match ambition to reality. As the document notes, CCS could potentially scrub as much as 90% of carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power generation. It gives us a real chance to bolster our energy security by maintaining wider diversity in the energy mix. Labour recognised that: as the Minister said, we ran the competition for the first large-scale CCS demonstration project. We also identified £l billion-worth of funding on which the Minister is following through. He is to be commended for holding his Treasury colleagues’ feet to the fire and keeping the £l billion at the ready. We had the announcement on the first CCS project this time last year, early on in the coalition. It was repeated in the emergency Budget, then in the comprehensive spending review and again in the recent Budget statement—it has been announced more times than the spring, summer and autumn sales at DFS—but what have we actually had? What money has been spent or work carried out? The answer is zero, zilch, nowt.

Charles Hendry: Let me give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put the record straight. Will he confirm that under the last Labour Budget there was no funding whatever for the CCS project and that it was only when we came to power that we gave real money to it— £1 billion, which is more than any other Government anywhere in the world have given to this sort of work?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can put the record straight: not only had we identified the project but we had pledged the money for it.

Charles Hendry: indicated  dissent .

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed we had: the CCS competition was up and running. Instead of having a delay of a year and waiting for some announcement, we would have been getting on with it now.
	That is just the first project. We have also, as we have heard tonight, been promised projects 2, 3 and 4, depending, of course, on Mr Chancellor being his usual generous self and/or on European new entrant reserve funding—or perhaps on the tooth fairy at some point. If our amendment on CCS had been selected, we would simply have been asking the Minister to put our money—taxpayers’ money—where his mouth is.
	If CCS is successful on an industrial scale, it will help with diversity and security of energy by making gas and coal part of our low-carbon future. Without it, the energy sources in these national policy statements—coal imminently and gas very soon after—are doomed in the UK. It has to work. Without it, the opportunity for Britain to lead the way in research, development and industrial application and to develop a world-lead in the export market will be missed. More to the point, we have a moral responsibility to do this. To all the people who argue that no fossil fuel can ever be clean, I say, “Look at China’s increased generation of energy every year, which is equal to total UK energy capacity. Look at China building one traditional ‘dirty’ coal-generating plant every single week,” because if we are serious about our intent to tackle international climate change, what greater opportunity is there to help others tackle their and our addiction to traditional, wasteful fossil fuel burning and create opportunities to lead in this innovation?
	EN-5 deals with electricity networks infrastructure and the multibillion pound investment required. The whole House will want to wish National Grid a happy 75th birthday, but when you are 75, things start to creak a little and things fall off—present company excluded, Madam Deputy Speaker, including yourself. We not only need the investment in maintenance, but we need to link up parts of the country that are currently energy deserts. We need to develop more two-way connectivity to allow the generation that was mentioned to and from new locations, to develop a smart grid over time, and to deal with the potential doubling of electricity demand.
	EN-4 anticipates the need for new gas import infrastructure and storage capacity to help avoid the volatility in prices to which we are now subjected and to provide gas security. The national policy statements that we have not touched on cover environmental and other planning issues exhaustively. The Minister’s officials are to be congratulated on their hard work across the board.
	Underpinning all the welcome NPSs before us, the EMR last week, the new energy Bill, which we anticipate some time in the coming parliamentary Session, and the current Energy Bill, which seems to have been lost in action temporarily, is the need not only to tackle our energy consumption by demand-side measures and energy efficiency and to have new energy production that is low carbon and increasingly renewables-based, but to resolve the most complex of energy conundrums in the most
	cost-effective way possible. The Minister and his Secretary of State are in danger of losing the argument for new generation energy before they have even begun. They have lost focus on the need for affordability, for UK plc to remain competitive internationally, and for people to be able to pay their bills without making the choice between eating and heating.
	Two of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) have also been tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. I have spoken to my hon. Friend about my worries that at this late stage, with the need to get the national policy statements completed, any of the amendments could add further delay to the already delayed NPSs. However, I have great sympathy with his desire to see that the waste hierarchy is effectively applied to all energy waste. Although I cannot support his amendments if they cause delay, I join his call for the Minister, perhaps in his concluding remarks, to make it clear that outside the NPSs, the IPC will have to take account of the waste hierarchy and make the right decisions.
	I think the Minister will agree that, as I said at the outset, it is disappointing that these national policy statements, which will underpin our energy future in the UK, have so little time to be debated today, but it is good that they exist. As so many hon. Members wish to speak and so little time is available, I simply say to the Minister well done on getting to this point. It has been long awaited and we understand why. We can afford no more delay, dither or uncertainty. Ernst and Young’s recent report stated baldly:
	“Compared with the level of ambition, clarity of policy direction and scale of investment being delivered by a number of other countries, the UK is in danger of being left behind.”
	The Secretary of State needs to put a bit more of his energy into delivering our energy future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We have approximately 55 minutes left to take 18 speakers. I shall set a time limit from now of five minutes on all Back-Bench speakers. That means that not everybody will get in if every Member takes five minutes. Out of courtesy and consideration for fellow Back-Bench Members, Members might like to curtail their speeches. They can do the maths as well as I can.

Glyn Davies: I begin my contribution to the debate by putting my cards clearly on the table. My constituency, Montgomeryshire, is threatened as never before in its history—threatened not by military might, but by energy policy and by an invasion of wind turbines, electricity pylons and substations on a scale that will destroy the natural beauty of mid-Wales and desecrate its landscape. I owe it to my constituents who sent me here to do everything within my power and within the law to limit such desecration. More specifically, I speak with a total commitment to defeating National Grid’s mid-Wales connection project, a monstrous proposal which underpins it all.
	The national policy statements are hugely significant documents. I wanted—but I am not able—to spend a considerable amount of time referring to all the positive
	points in those documents. I shall concentrate on the one aspect that concerns me most. We know that we are facing a huge problem. We must face the reality that the United Kingdom faces on energy. The coalition Government have no choice but to tackle the problems facing future supply. Action has been delayed too long and previous Governments have ducked difficult decisions. Our existing nuclear power generating capacity is nearing the end of its life. We cannot allow ourselves to become dangerously dependent on imported energy from less stable parts of the world, and we have signed up to moving towards a low carbon economy.
	Those factors have led many of us to reassess some of the opinions we once held with certainty. After being an opponent of nuclear power all my life, I have recognised now that it is essential. After opposing the Severn barrage all my life, I recognise now that we must encourage the private sector to come forward with a realistic proposal. Perhaps the most important thing of all is that we drive forward with our innovative green deal to reduce energy use. But I do not believe that we should sacrifice the countryside of Britain for a technology that satisfies Government objectives in only the most superficial and short-term way.
	To create a massive overdependence on onshore wind would be a short-sighted and costly mistake, driving millions of the poorest people into fuel poverty and costing Britain thousands of jobs for a marginal benefit. Mid-Wales is facing a prospect that it has never thought about before. The National Grid’s mid-Wales connection project envisages a new 400 kW cable stretching from the heart of mid-Wales down one of our narrow valleys to the existing grid in Shropshire, some 30 miles distant. It involves a 20-acre substation and about 100 km of cable, and because it is a connection dedicated to wind farms, it will eventually involve about 600 additional wind turbines. It is an horrendous prospect.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Glyn Davies: No, I am sorry, I do not have time. I cannot give way. I owe it to other speakers.
	The project has led to the rising of a people’s protest unmatched by anything in my lifetime’s experience. Even the First Minister of Wales and his Welsh Government have issued public statements opposing the substation and opposing the line. I have time to touch on only two points this evening, and those are crucial. The national policy statements give leviathan-like powers to the Secretary of State through the approval process. My first point relates to the attitude of people towards onshore wind. I suspect that in mid-Wales most people were generally supportive of the concept of onshore wind, until this proposal came forward. Now, as far as I can see, the whole of mid-Wales has turned against the entire sector and is linking up with other organisations across Britain to take on the sector. I have never seen anything so unified.
	The second point is about the unity of the United Kingdom. If we manage somehow to force the project on Wales when the people are against it, the First Minister is against it, his Government are against it, and both branches of the coalition parties in government here are against it, we will create an unmatched degree of resentment. I suggest that the Minister Google the
	word Tryweryn when he goes home, and he will understand that previously we had an occasion when external demands for power would have desecrated Wales. The people rose up in opposition, and they will do so again if the project goes through.

Dai Havard: I have tabled three amendments to the national policy statements motions—amendment (e) to motion 1, amendment (b) to motion 2, and amendment (a) to motion 3. I have one minute in which to speak to each one, so I will try to get the end of my speech in first. I say to the Minister that, on the arguments about delay, and if he accepts any changes, I understand the need for clarity, which is partly what I am arguing for, and that the industry needs some sort of certainty on the plan. A supposed delay in the national policy statements would not mean that applications could not be made, proceed and be heard. I know that because an application is currently being heard for a huge incinerator in my constituency that would take 750,000 tonnes of non-recycled waste every year and generate 65 MW of electricity.
	That perversity has come about by default, in the sense that the Minister, having decided that waste should be part of the IPC process, has set a minimum requirement of 50 MW, which has almost invited the industry to come forward with applications for huge developments. The industry has decided that it will have various sub-UK regional units, and has used this opportunity to do exactly that. Nothing has been said about the proximity principle.
	Local people are trying to decide how best to deal with their own waste locally. Part of the solution might be smaller incineration, and I do not contest that. I contest the scale of the current proposals, which is why I have tabled the amendments. As an hon. Member said earlier, the argument for moving this material into the guidance on fossil fuel is about the fact that it produces a huge amount of carbon. I understand the argument about why methane is better than carbon because it can be captured and used. In fact, the incinerator proposed in my constituency, basically as part of a current open-cast mine, is next to a huge landfill site. So there is a triple alliance. They are capturing the methane from the landfill site and selling it, so to me that is something of a false analysis.
	The question is whether such activities are green. In the context of the proximity principle, I fail to understand how it is green to drag waste from one end of the country to another without adding carbon into the calculation. I also fail to understand how it could be carbon-neutral to import waste, because my great fear is that the way this guidance is structured means that it will not be about waste policy, but about opportunities for people to speculate on energy generation, ignorant of a waste policy. The receiving stations for the waste will be at ports, to come by rail and road to be burned. The sustainability of these mechanisms is questionable. If we are to move to zero waste the amount of potential fuel supply will reduce—and rightly so—so how sustainable will they be over 25, 35 and 40 years? They might be sustainable if we were to burn the waste generated by the Camorra in Naples and import it into Newport to do that, but heaven forfend that such a thing should take place. Well, not now.
	The waste hierarchy is not simply about local questions of determination. In the longer term it could go much further, so I invite the Minister to choose, of all the amendments I have tabled, to put this method into the IPC’s consideration process. If it is not possible to do it this way, will he please explain how it should be done, because at the moment we have a series of factors that it is apparently not to examine. It seems that the list of what not to examine, including connection and the grid, is more important than the list of things it is to examine. That means that it cannot determine any particular decision in the round, in its proper context—certainly not in relation to energy supply under the waste hierarchy.
	I say to the Minister that there are security problems here. If we choose to have a smaller number of larger units, that is not secure. We should be looking for a more distributed process. That is what I thought the Assembly in Cardiff was trying to think about. This trumps anything that the Assembly would want to do. It is a policy that applies across England and Wales, yet it denies the Welsh Assembly Government the opportunity to make a real decision. That is why I proposed to take it out of the processes. That would not have stopped wind energy and all the other things, but it would have given them the opportunity to determine that, so I ask the Minister—with very little time now to speak to the amendments properly—to take account—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I call Martin Horwood.

Martin Horwood: I rise to speak to the nuclear national policy statement in particular on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, and to state our clear and unchanged view that nuclear power is unsafe, unaffordable, uninsurable, unpopular, not renewable, not decentralised, not particularly reliable, and not the kind of energy that the greenest Government ever should ever be caught promoting. When we are already paying £1.5 billion a year in nuclear clean-up and decommissioning costs from the previous generation of nuclear power stations, when we still do not know how, when or where we will dispose of the last 64 years’ worth of radioactive waste, and when country after country is abandoning nuclear power, it is extraordinary that one of the national policy statements before us today seriously proposes embarking on a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Jamie Reed: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he must desist from peddling the myth that the decommissioning costs that this country faces are entirely due to the civil nuclear programme. Does he not accept that most of those costs are due to our military programme?

Martin Horwood: I accept that a percentage of them are—we have debated this at length in relation to the Energy Bill—but the hon. Gentleman must accept that a huge bill is still falling on taxpayers in this country as a result of the last generation of nuclear power stations. Why would we want to risk repeating that mistake?
	I acknowledge that nuclear power is a relatively low-carbon energy source, but it is not renewable. Uranium is very far from being a renewable resource, and may
	prove to be very expensive if more of the world chooses to follow us down this dangerous path, although few would do so if even the insurance costs of nuclear power were accurately reflected in its price. One estimate suggests that French nuclear power might be four times as expensive if the French taxpayer were not the insurer of last resort.
	I also acknowledge—I agree with the Minister on this point—that fulfilling our future energy needs is a challenge. The overarching national policy statement sets out the need for urgency, with one quarter of the UK’s generating capacity due to close by 2018, but the nuclear NPS states on page 235 that applicants only have to provide a plan that is
	“credible for deployment by 2025”.
	It even states that
	“a detailed project plan…will not normally be needed.”
	The worldwide experience is that not a single nuclear power station has ever been built on time, on budget or without public subsidy. It is very doubtful what contribution nuclear will make to closing the energy gap.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I will give way, for the last time.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman has made his party’s position on new nuclear very clear, but where does it stand on extending the life of existing nuclear plants so that low-carbon generation can be extended to bridge the gap that he talks about?

Martin Horwood: There is already an issue relating to existing nuclear, as the floor price for carbon will give it an undeserved subsidy for no actual change in behaviour.
	Planning for the energy gap pales into insignificance beside the time scales that have to be imagined for waste disposal and site safety. It is those long-term dangers that should concern us most. Politicians are often criticised for a lack of long-term foresight, but certainly not this Government. The historian in me is delighted to report that we are making policy today for the mid-22nd century and beyond. On the very long-term scale there is the moral question of whether material that is likely to be dangerously radioactive for millennia should ever be intentionally created, however safely we plan to store it. We can know as little about societies 1,000 years from now as the Anglo-Saxons could have known about us. To talk of long-term storage, accessibility and monitoring arrangements over such time scales is utterly meaningless. We are leaving a toxic legacy to future generations about which we can know absolutely nothing.
	The NPS does not appear to pay any attention at all to those issues, but it does have something to say on rather shorter historical time scales. In relation to those, Ministers are acting not so much like Anglo-Saxons making policy for today, but like Gladstone or Disraeli trying to determine our current waste disposal policy. The NPS states, on page 239:
	“Geological disposal of higher activity waste from new nuclear power stations is currently expected to be available for new build waste from around 2130”
	That is on the assumption that spent fuel rods kept on site will have cooled sufficiently for disposal in geological disposal facilities. Every decade of activity will add another decade to the end disposal date.
	Hon. Members are today being asked to make nuclear waste disposal policy well into the mid-22nd century. Of course, policy making on such a time scale is not remotely practical, and the NPS admits as much. On page 239 it says:
	“it is possible that there could be waste on site for longer than the assessment has been able to look ahead. Predictions of potential climate change impacts become less certain the further into the future the assessments are for, and it is not practicable to consider beyond 2100 at this stage.”
	That is an interesting contrast with the Weightman report, which explicitly evaluates risk only in so far as that is reasonably practical and does not even address the major cost of evacuation and dislocation that has emerged at Fukushima.
	Why are we being asked to approve a policy with risks that will be significant into the mid-22nd century when the NPS itself admits that those are not practicable to foresee, and the Government’s own safety adviser has not even tried to address them? The NPS talks of additional safeguards to cover these risks, saying that applicants need to
	“identify the potential effects of the credible maximum scenario in the most recent projections of marine and coastal flooding”
	and demonstrate that they could take “further measures” if necessary. I suspect that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the No Need for Nuclear campaign, and all their lawyers, will no doubt take full advantage of those words, with scope for years of argument and debate. If I were an investor in new nuclear, I would not be holding my breath for a return on investment before 2025.
	The jury is still out on the long-term effects of Fukushima, but it is already clear that even without a major Chernobyl-style meltdown 50,000 people have still been displaced, and there is a bill running to tens of billions of pounds—and, as always, the taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill.
	The real lesson, if I can paraphrase this in parliamentary language, is: stuff happens, and when it does, nuclear power is the worst possible energy source to have lying in its path. At this of all times, we should reassess our national commitment to nuclear. I know that the radioactive tendencies in the Tory and Labour parties make the passing of this policy statement inevitable, but we must challenge every licence and its capacity to withstand the worst-case scenario of climate change, and we must challenge every hidden and indirect subsidy that will make nuclear power possible.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I have heard it all before, and I still do not agree with him. I stand here as chair of the all-party nuclear energy group, so it would not take a genius to work out where my sympathies lie. The hon. Gentleman talked about the stone age, and that is exactly where he would like us to be. We are trying to develop a future—somewhere we want to go to. Eventually, one day, man will have to solve the problem of his own survival and move to another planet. It is pretty clear that the hon. Gentleman did not wait for the spaceship before he went there.
	I am bothered by what the Minister said about the time delay that has, once again, been introduced. I attacked my own Government on the length of time it
	took them to put their policies together, and here we are again, not much further forward than we were at the time of the last general election. I accept that the national policy statements are needed, and I support them. If there are votes, I will support the Government on this, because it is vital to this nation. It was said earlier that there was no solution to the problem of nuclear waste, but there is. Anybody who wishes to go to Oskarshamn in Sweden will see that technology in action. The good news is that Sweden has taken the next step and is now building its new repository.

Jamie Reed: We all want CCS technology to succeed and prosper. Does my hon. Friend agree that although Members in all parts of the House seem to be betting the farm on CCS succeeding, what we know about radioactive waste disposal is significantly well in advance of what we know about carbon capture and disposal?

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If anybody knows anything about nuclear power, it will be him, as Sellafield is in his constituency and he deals with it on a day-to-day basis.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) did well in speaking to his amendments in a very short space of time. He and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who is not in his place at the moment, said that they dislike incinerators. The good news is that people who live around nuclear power stations do not dislike them; in fact, they see them as a source of wealth and a way of developing further.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention Scotland at this point. These NPSs apply to Scotland as well, energy being a matter that is reserved to this House. We can abide by all of them north of the border except on one thing, which is the most important in the development of any new technology or, for that matter, old technology—planning. In Scotland, planning can be used to stop new nuclear power stations or wind farms being built anywhere, whether offshore, onshore or anywhere else. That is wrong, and the Government and this House should take a careful look at it. Thousands of jobs and billions of pounds are involved in building a nuclear power station. The west of Scotland, in particular, will need 9,000 jobs in a few years’ time, and we are not going to get them thanks to a Government north of the border who use the planning rules to stop nuclear development, all because of a doctrine and an ideology followed by many people in this House—the hon. Member for Cheltenham is one of them—that has nothing to do with how real people have to live their lives now and in future.
	I have heard the talk about Fukushima. Although everybody in this House regrets what happened there, the fact is that the problem was not the nuclear power station but the tidal wave that hit it.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: No, I will not.
	I do not believe that anybody has, as yet, been killed because of the nuclear power station. Tens of thousands of people have been killed thanks to the tsunami, but that is unfortunately the way things are going.

Martin Horwood: rose —

John Robertson: I have already said that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Base load for this country is very important, as is the cost of energy. Two of the big six have already put their prices up. It is the Government’s job to try to make sure that we bring these people to task, but we do not want to give them loads of money to build wind farms in places where they are no good and a waste of money, as we have seen in many places in Scotland. I want a level playing field in energy for everybody. If there are no subsidies for nuclear, there should be no subsidies anywhere else. If we are looking to try to promote low carbon, then so be it. However, my wee old ladies up in Drumchapel, an area of my constituency that is one of the poorest areas in the country, are worried about how they are going to pay their electricity bills at the end of this year. That is a bit more important than whether we build a wind farm in the middle of nowhere that is a waste of money and that we are subsidising.

Mike Weatherley: There are many items in the national policy statements that are to be commended. Were it not for a trip that I made a number of years ago, it is unlikely that I would be addressing the House about my concerns over nuclear power. It is important that emotions do not blur the facts that form the substance of this debate, but it was incredibly difficult to suppress the strength of feeling that overwhelms one when visiting the small, now deserted town of Prypiat, which is now in Ukraine.
	I intend to highlight why I believe that the quest for new sources of nuclear power, as a means of producing energy, should be halted. Although I am sure carbon emissions have a place in this debate, my concern about nuclear is focused elsewhere. It can be divided into three main categories: first, the financial viability, without Government subsidy, of any new nuclear facility; secondly, how new nuclear waste can realistically be disposed of; and thirdly, but most importantly, human and animal safety.
	I am acutely aware of the need for new ways to generate power. If nuclear generation really was the only option, I would of course support new nuclear power plants. We cannot allow the lights to go out. However, nuclear power will not keep the lights on. I believe that cleaner fossil fuel plants, which are relatively fast to build, renewables, and state-of-the-art decentralised power stations are better alternatives.

Steven Baker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mike Weatherley: In the interests of the debate, I have to continue. I am ever so sorry.
	I find it very worrying that the Government are providing significant subsidies, met by the taxpayer. Subsidies are a useful tool for kick-starting new investment. They occur in a number of ways for a wide variety of sectors, but nuclear power should not be part of that.
	Disaster insurance is another factor that must be considered, as we heard earlier. Vast liabilities fall to the taxpayer. European law caps insurance liability to £1.6 billion for the industry, and payouts after that fall
	to Governments. Estimates are still being formed for the recent disaster in Japan, but it is thought that it will cost in the region of £60 billion. Shortfalls like that could cripple our economy.
	The second category is that of waste products, which I mentioned in my question to the Minister. Unfortunately, how we will have clean, effective and safe waste management for future nuclear radioactive waste remains unanswered. Underground storage has been suggested, and I thank the Minister for his earlier reply, but at the moment that is only technically achievable and is not a proven reality. Future waste costs are unknown and rely on technology that is yet to be proven to work. That risk from an inevitable by-product is unacceptable.
	The final category is safety. The Chernobyl disaster, 25 yeas ago in 1986, brought home to the rest of the world the fact that nuclear power is phenomenally dangerous, and not just in the immediate vicinity of the disaster but across a wide, Europe-sized area. It is well-documented that radioactive caesium was detected in a number of upland areas in the UK. An Environment Agency report from last month states that in 2009 restrictions were still in place for 343 farms or part farms, affecting 190,000 sheep. Twenty five years on, there is still a considerable legacy for the UK from a nuclear disaster some 1,200 miles away. Indeed, freshwater fish in Cumbria still show signs of contamination. Worryingly, the maximum radiation dose that any member of the public would receive from eating those fish was assessed to be up to 10% of their annual limit.
	No monetary cost can be put on the devastation should the highly unlikely but possible eventuality of a nuclear accident occur. The national policy statement says that
	“the risk of radiological health detriment posed by nuclear power stations (both during normal operation and as a result of an unplanned release) is very small.”
	Let us note that it does not say “zero”. A nuclear disaster may be a remote possibility, as we were told in 1985.

Jamie Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Weatherley: No, I have only got another minute. [[Hon. Members: “You would get an extra minute.”] I know, but it is fairer to other people if I keep going.
	If a nuclear disaster did happen, the consequences would be immense. The question I ask today is whether it is really worth the risk. We must balance slightly cheaper electricity against an unknown cost that would dwarf any expenditure contingency plans. I say that it is not worth it and we should not take the risk. I urge the Government to reconsider their nuclear programme.

Phil Wilson: We are all aware of the need to fight climate change and we all have a role to play. This is an issue we need to face as a nation. The question is whether we are facing it as a nation and whether all parts of the nation are playing the same part. Are we all in this together? I would say that we are not. Whether one can stake a claim to the accolade, “We’re all in this together” depends on where one lives.
	I speak for a region and a county that can fairly say that they are playing their part in the fight against climate change. Our commitment to generating energy from renewable sources is exceptional. Durham county
	council was the first local authority to produce a renewable energy strategy back in 1994. In County Durham, 22% of our renewable energy needs are met from renewable sources, predominantly wind. We have 16 wind farms with 65 turbines that generate more than 120 MW of power. That provides for the energy needs of 69,000 houses. In Chilton in my constituency, Dalkia has built a biomass facility with the support of the local community, which generates up to 17 MW of electricity. The wind farms at Trimdon Grange, Walkway and Butterwick generate 44 MW of electricity from 21 turbines, which are all more than 100 metres tall or four times the height of the Angel of the North. The county also produces renewable energy from hydro and landfill.
	My part of the country is playing its part, especially when compared with other parts of the country. In the context of the national policy statements, we should look at how the rest of the country is sharing the burden of renewable energy generation. The latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that the north-east is producing more than 40% of its energy needs from renewable sources when all approved schemes are taken into consideration. That is equivalent to the regions of London, the west midlands, the south-east, the north-west, the east, the east midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber combined. The north-east is producing 563 MW from approved renewable energy schemes, which is more than twice the figure for the south-east and the south-west.
	The position on wind farms is even more telling. County Durham is again playing its part, but what about the rest of the country? There are significant schemes in Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Cambridgeshire and Yorkshire. Let us look at the members of the Cabinet. Only five host wind farms in their constituencies. The largest wind farms are in the constituencies of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). The former has 226 turbines and the latter 259. However, those constituencies are huge. The first covers nearly 1,500 square miles and the second approaching 2,000 square miles. That is equivalent to one turbine per 6 to 7 square miles. E.ON is to announce a wind farm in my constituency with up to 45 turbines. If that was added to those already in existence and in planning in the Sedgefield constituency, there would be 78 wind turbines in 151 square miles, which is one turbine per 2 square miles. Hampshire, where the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has his constituency, consumes three times as much energy as County Durham and produces zero of its energy from renewable sources. That is not all of us being in it together.
	Over the past 30 to 40 years, Durham county council has done an excellent job in reclaiming the pit heaps that once scarred the landscape. It did not do that for the landscape to be reindustrialised, and this time without the thousands of jobs. It does not have to be like that. Renewable energy needs to be produced, but there must be more efficient ways of doing it.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Phil Wilson: I will not take interventions because I am thinking of other colleagues.
	An example is the biomass facility in Chilton built by Dalkia, which produces 17 MW of electricity. A written answer that I received from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), last week stated that wind turbines are 21.5% efficient. Therefore, it would take 40 turbines to produce the same electricity as the one biomass facility in Chilton. Strangely enough, that is about the same number that E.ON wants to build on a 16 sq km site just to the south of the village and on part of a site of special scientific interest. No doubt the company will produce a handsome community chest for the area. However, when that is compared with the population of 40,000 and the increase in energy prices that my constituents face, not to mention the thousands of pounds to be received by a handful of landowners to see the area blighted for 25 years, it is asking too much.
	Of course there is a need for renewable energy and for a national plan. However, that plan must involve the whole nation and it must share the burden, not just the benefits.

Peter Lilley: This country faces a serious threat of black-outs unless we undertake a major programme of building new generating capacity to replace the existing plants that are coming to the end of their lives or that will no longer be legal under EU directives. I strongly support measures to streamline the planning process so that that construction programme can go ahead and, in particular, to encourage the development of nuclear after 12 wasted years in which there was a failure to move ahead with the nuclear programme.
	We will be able to avoid the black-outs only if all our effort is put into this unprecedented construction programme. I do not believe that the country can afford, in addition, to build generating capacity that has no real use. That is what a lot of these measures are about. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said in a recent article that the measures he is introducing will deliver “secure, affordable energy”. They will deliver neither secure nor affordable energy. Renewables are not secure. The sun does not come out at night, it does not come out in the winter very often, and it does not come out when it is cloudy. It is not available when we most need the energy.
	Wind is intermittent. The recent Stuart Young report stated that wind plant operates at less than 20% of its capacity over the country as a whole for half the time, less than 10% for a third of the time and barely 1% for one day every month. For each of the four highest periods of peak demand in 2010, it operated at only 4.7%, 5.5%, 2.6% and 2.5% of capacity. Precisely when we needed it most, wind was not there.
	For some reason, people ignore the lessons of the past. The great Victorian economist Jevons wrote back in 1865:
	“The first great requisite of motive power is that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.”
	Those who seriously believe that we can run this country on wind power are living in a dream world and are harking back to the middle ages.
	Nor will this programme produce lower costs. The Secretary of State said that it would keep bills lower than they would be if we stuck with the existing arrangements, but I find that statement completely indefensible. We cannot lower the cost of energy by requiring people to use more expensive types of energy. If we replace low-cost energy with high-cost energy, we will not and cannot reduce the costs, yet that is the whole thrust of the programme. The Renewable Energy Foundation and the Committee on Climate Change agree that it will cost £100 billion in subsidies to 2030, which is equivalent to more than £200 a household a year, to support renewables.
	We know, fortunately, that the Government do not really believe they will bring down costs or that renewables costs will rise less rapidly than those of hydrocarbons. If they did believe that, there would be no need for subsidies. They would not be forecasting £100 billion of subsidies if higher hydrocarbon costs or reduced costs of renewables would make the latter economic without subsidy. Sadly, the Secretary of State does not live by the logic of his own position but instead puts forward rhetoric that is neither defensible nor supportable. I wait to hear in his winding-up speech whether the Minister can explain how we can get lower costs from higher-cost energy.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are running out of time, so brevity is important. If hon. Members have already spoken, I think it is quite wrong for them to try to intervene, as there is a very limited time for the debate.

Caroline Lucas: I am very happy to follow the earlier speeches of the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and, perhaps less surprisingly, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I only wish that the latter and his colleagues were in a position to vote according to how they have spoken if there is a vote later this evening. Time is very short, and I wish to make just three points. One is about the overall targets in the national policy statements, one is about energy from waste, and I will finally say a few words about nuclear.
	When I intervened on the Minister earlier about the overall emission reduction targets set out in the fourth carbon budget, I sensed a certain irritation that I kept standing up to make the point that although the targets were ambitious compared with other countries—I certainly give the Government that—they were not ambitious enough. I am sorry if that makes me a bit of a Cassandra in the House, but the Tyndall Centre, one of the foremost institutes on climate change in this country, states that the targets set out in the fourth carbon budget set us on course for having only a 60% likelihood of avoiding the 2° C temperature rise threshold. If I were to say to anybody in the House, “If you step on this aeroplane, it’s only got a 60% chance of reaching its destination safely”, the chances are they might just think twice before getting on the plane. It seems extraordinary. If any other area of Government policy was knowingly designed with such a low chance of success we would be up in arms, so why are we not when it comes to the very survival of the planet?
	Let us not forget that the 2° C threshold is not the distinction between acceptable climate change on the one hand and dangerous climate change on the other. It is the difference between dangerous climate change and very dangerous climate change. That is the lens through which I would like us to look at the national policy statements tonight.
	I wish to make a brief point in support of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), who rightly questioned the Government’s classification of incineration or energy from waste as a renewable energy source. Given that a significant amount of the material that goes into incinerators is not made from renewables, and that they can often emit at least a third more carbon dioxide than a modern gas-fired power station, it is hard to see quite why they are considered a renewable source.
	Furthermore, massive new incinerators such as the one at Newhaven, near my constituency, lock local authorities into providing huge quantities of waste for very many years. The contracts last many years and, under them, a minimum amount of waste is required to feed the incinerators. We are therefore locked into the process, which inevitably discourages waste reduction, reuse and recycling efforts.
	The final point that I wish to make is about nuclear. Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and, more than anything else, simply unnecessary. We do not need it. Of the Government’s 17 possible pathways to delivering 80% CO2 reductions by 2050, four include no energy from nuclear or coal by 2035. A recent report by WWF and others concluded that by 2050, it would be perfectly possible to generate 95% of global energy supplies from renewable sources alone. There would of course be a need for up-front investments to make the transition, in the order of 1% to 2% of global gross domestic product, but the report also found that that investment would turn into a positive cash flow after 2035, leading to a positive annual result of 2% of global GDP in 2050. In place of nuclear, renewables are quicker to deliver, can meet our energy demands and have a huge potential to boost the UK’s economy. There are far more green jobs in renewables than there ever are in fossil fuels.
	It is not those of us who advocate renewables who are living in the dark ages. To the contrary, it is Members such as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who seems not to know about such things as storing energy, European super-grids or the fact that we are talking not about one single energy source but about a whole range of renewable sources that, together, can provide the energy that we need if the political commitment and will is there. Nuclear energy is incredibly unsafe, as Fukushima has shown us, and massively expensive. More than ever, it simply is not needed. I call on hon. Members to consider that carefully when we hopefully come to vote on it later tonight.

Nicky Morgan: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on these important statements. I will try to keep my remarks brief, because I am very conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. I entirely endorse the Minister’s comments that we need a clear planning regime for major infrastructure in this country. That is what these statements are about—facilitating the planning process.
	I wish to talk about national policy statement 3, the inclusion of energy from waste, and in particular incineration. I am not against incineration per se, but I am in favour of it being a last resort, which is why it is important to tie this in with the waste review and the waste hierarchy. However, I am most against not listening to people. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), who is not in the Chamber. He said that people who live near nuclear power stations did not seem to mind them, whereas people who live near incinerators very much mind them. That is absolutely the case, and I shall explain in a moment why I have a local interest in that respect.
	I also want to focus on the planning system, localism—an important tenet of this Government—and the waste review. Localism will mean nothing if local communities are not sufficiently empowered to tackle potentially damaging developments in their area. In my constituency, there is a proposal to site an incinerator near Newhurst quarry, Shepshed. Many of my constituents feel that their voices have not been heard, either in the Environment Agency process for the granting of the environmental permit, or in the planning process. I am delighted to say that the county council has so far resisted giving planning permission to that incinerator, but we are about to go round the houses again with a new planning application and an appeal against the original refusal.
	I speak for many constituents when I say that the planning system continues to disfranchise local communities, and often seems to favour large developers, who are able to ride roughshod over the views and concerns of local people. The views of local people are not taken into account in the planning process, and it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify in his winding-up speech or another time whether the statements could define the role and position of local communities in relation to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. At the moment, that seems to be very much a national planning infrastructure body, and the voice of local communities could easily be forgotten or ignored.
	The statements explicitly state that the IPC should
	“consider how the accumulation of, and interrelationship between, effects might affect the environment, economy or community as a whole, even though they may be acceptable when considered on an individual basis with mitigation measures in place”.
	That is an important point to bear in mind, because all to often, planning decisions seem to be made by considering many individual factors rather than the impact that a development might have on an area as a whole. Incinerators will often have a cumulative negative impact on the character of a local area.
	I do not have time to say much about two other aspects of the planning system—visual amenity and the impact of incinerators on historical environments—but it seems that incinerators, which often need large stacks to make them work, cannot possibly be seen not to have an impact on the visual amenity of an area.
	People are very concerned about the health issues in respect of applications for building incinerators. I wrote to the Health Protection Agency on 29 June and received a response at the end of last week. Although it reiterated its usual position—that the health effects of modern municipal waste incinerators are not harmful—it also acknowledged public concerns and it confirmed that it is in discussions with researchers at Imperial college,
	London, about a potential study into birth outcomes around municipal waste incinerators. It is currently in the process of drawing up a detailed proposal.
	That is where I come back to my original point: we must not forget the views of local communities. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, if we want this country to follow a low-carbon future, we must take people with us.
	I think I have made my point on the role of incinerators —it must fit in with Government waste policy—and an Opposition Member has already mentioned the parliamentary answer he received on 17 January about the carbon that is produced by incinerators. Therefore, in conclusion, I must admit that I was tempted by the amendments, but I take what the Minister has said—that energy from waste means something broader than just incinerators—and on that basis, I shall not back them. However, it would be helpful to have a clear understanding of the place of incinerators in the waste hierarchy—I welcome the Minister saying that they are low down in that. The voice of local communities must not be forgotten.

Tom Greatrex: I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to be briefer than the five minutes allowed. There is a lot of detail in the documents, and it is a shame that we are not able to have a longer debate on some of those issues.
	In his opening remarks, the Minister talked about the need for certainty in the marketplace, as he has a number of times. I am sure that he is as concerned as I am at the quarterly Ernst and Young survey, which shows that energy infrastructure investment has fallen in the past year. I mentioned carbon capture and storage, skills and export potential in an intervention, so I shall not repeat that point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), who is no longer in the Chamber, made a point about nuclear in Scotland. I wanted to place on record the deep irony of the position. The separatist Administration in Scotland, with their anti-nuclear policy, seem quite content, effectively, for the base load to be imported from what will be, in their wishes and by that time, a foreign country, to keep the lights on in Scotland.
	However, I wanted to make a couple of specific points in relation to the documents, particularly in relation to EN-3 and the impact on commercial fisheries. The document refers to discussions with representatives of the fishing industry about the safety zones that might restrict or exclude activity around offshore wind turbine developments, which has been raised with me by fishing representatives—it is not a direct constituency interest, but it is an interest for a number of people in Scotland. Will the Minister explain further—if he cannot do so in his summing-up, he could do so by writing later—what mitigation will be in place for those industries and communities that are reliant on fisheries? Perhaps that also relates to the Crown Estate, which is also referred to in that policy statement. Will he say whether we can look at the community benefit when Crown Estate revenues are derived from offshore wind developments? When we talk about community benefit, for example in Scotland, it does not mean that the benefit should go to Edinburgh: it means that it should go to the communities that will be adversely affected.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) referred to creaking grid infrastructure, which is a crucial point to marry up with these policy statements. So too is the transmission charging regime, and the Minister will have heard me make this point on several occasions. The way in which the transmission charging regime works at the moment has been portrayed in some forums as anti-Scottish discrimination. I would not put it in those terms—it has probably been done so for political purposes—but we are encumbered by a regime that is designed for a pre-renewable age, and we need to ensure that it is fit for purpose, alongside the infrastructure that is needed in the national grid for renewable energy. It is important to look at geographical signals and how they have changed in relation to where electricity will be generated in the future. That is why I welcome the Ofgem TransmiT review and I hope that Ministers will respond to any recommendations quickly and concisely so that they, these statements and the electricity market reform proposals earlier in the week will work together to give us the best chance of a balanced, sustainable and secure energy future.

Therese Coffey: This is an important debate on the energy future of our country. I boasted a little last week in Prime Minister’s questions about how Suffolk has ambitions to be the greenest county. However, I wish to make it clear today that I fully welcome all the national policy statements, in particular that referring to Sizewell as a potential new nuclear site. That is welcomed locally, although about eight constituents have written to me with their concerns about nuclear power. However, I am more than convinced by the Wakeman nuclear review, and given that I see the dome of Sizewell B every time I go home, I can assure my constituents and the House that I live in close proximity to a nuclear power station and feel perfectly safe.
	Coastal erosion is also relevant to my part of the world, and I am comforted by the fact that the Environment Agency has provided general support, although it recognises that detailed coastal erosion mitigation plans are needed. I also wish to raise the issue of the Minsmere sluice, which is especially important to some of my constituents. I highlight that so that the agency is fully aware of the concerns that people have.
	I have to cut my remarks short, so all I would say to the Minister and the Secretary of State—it is a shame that he is not in his place, especially to hear the contribution by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) earlier—is that I am fully behind these national policy statements. Speed is of the essence and certainty is needed to engender investor confidence. I have worked with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), on this issue and we are ambitious to bring energy to our coast—and inland—where appropriate, but we need support in bridging the skills gap and capturing job opportunities. I support the motions.

Lindsay Hoyle: There are two minutes left.

Alan Whitehead: Perhaps I should send the Minister a copy of what I would have said and ask him to respond to it.
	I wish to draw attention to the need to get right the future capacity. The documents—EN-1 in particular—conclude that we will require 133 GW of installed capacity by the early 2020s. The figure appears to have come from nowhere and is not supported by the accompanying updated energy provision documents. Indeed, recent pronouncements by the National Grid appear to suggest that that is a considerable overestimate of the likely capacity required to enable us to keep the lights on.
	EN-1 is an over-arching policy document, so that conclusion spreads throughout the rest of the documents before us. They determine what energy mix we will have, including not whether we should have any further nuclear power but whether the new nuclear programme should be extensive. Even the UEP figures on enhanced capacity suggest that we will not have the amount of nuclear power that the Government suggest we want.
	We need to get the capacity figures right. The National Grid Company’s projection that we will need about 100 GW of installed capacity by the early 2020s to balance the system along with a little additional interconnection and a little work on energy demand—but not an enormous amount—is in stark contrast to what appears to be the guesswork in these overarching documents. My plea to the Minister is that, irrespective of whether we pass these documents tonight, we should have an early review of how much capacity we will need over the next few years, bearing in mind all the various things that are under way. We do not need these finger-in-the-air suggestions—people saying that we need an enormous amount of extra power and coming to a figure that seems about right but not on the basis of entirely standing by our own projections. I hope that the Minister will undertake that work and come back with different projections to inform future documents.

Meg Hillier: I think that we would all agree that we have heard some excellent contributions this evening on issues that could not be more important to our country: first, the framework needed for Britain’s future energy needs; and, secondly, our transition to a low-carbon economy. It is vital that the national policy statements create an effective framework to deliver on this issue and on the fourth carbon budget’s emissions reductions targets. As we have heard from the manner in which most Labour Members’ speeches have been delivered, the official Opposition want to play a constructive role.
	I want to comment on the Minister’s opening remarks. He talked with great enthusiasm about how the NPSs will unlock investment in the UK. I agree that that is an important impact. It is a shame, however, that Government policy elsewhere is working against much of that investment. He said that wave and tidal power will play an important part in reaching our targets, but there has been no investment in tidal by Governments for five years. That delay was introduced by this Government. We also heard from him that the NPSs will deliver growth and jobs. I wish that they could on their own, but try telling
	that to the solar and other renewables sectors in which Government policy is so far having the opposite effect. Although we welcome the NPSs, the Government’s record so far is not good. We have seen the shelving of investment in tidal power and under-investment in marine technology—both are areas in which the UK should and could be leading the way to create green jobs and investment up and down the country.
	The green investment bank, which we support, has been delayed and unfortunately will not be investing until after the next general election. Furthermore, there is as yet no green economy road map. It is good that we have the renewables road map, but on its own it is not enough. The Energy Bill, which is much vaunted by the Secretary of State as the great solution to green job creation, has fallen off the end of the parliamentary agenda. It is not even appearing before the House in the first week of September when we return. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, under this Government, our country has gone from fifth to 13th in the Pew environment group’s report on investment in environmental technologies.
	I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment to this issue, but the prioritisation of green investment issues is out of the hands of Ministers. Not only does the Secretary of State not have clout in Whitehall, but when we hear his Liberal Democrat colleagues speak in the House we see the true dilemma he faces and why he is dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof. At every turn, the Treasury has grabbed green money for the Exchequer coffers and broken the deal with companies that have gone greener in order to take that money for the Treasury.
	We have seen delays and a lack of joined-up thinking on the green economy. That has been demonstrated again tonight by the fact that so little time has been granted to debate these issues. I do not lay responsibility for that at the door of Ministers tonight; I blame the general attitude to these issues across the Government. Yes, other statements are important, but to reduce this important debate on five national policy statements to two hours is frankly a joke.
	In addition to the Minister, we heard from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), who spoke up for his constituents, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who delivered an extraordinary anti-nuclear rant—on behalf, one can only assume, of his Secretary of State, along with the entire Liberal Democrat party, as he said. Now we know the truth about where the Secretary of State stands, because the hon. Gentleman rather blew the lid on his repeated attempts to deny the use of subsidies in nuclear. It is good that the truth is out at last. Then we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), who spoke with knowledge and a realism that were unfortunately lacking in the previous speech.
	The hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) also spoke, with my hon. Friend highlighting his area’s commitment to renewable sources. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) joined in the criticism of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) also criticised the Secretary of State, but from a rather different perspective, while the hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky
	Morgan) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) all made thoughtful contributions too.
	We want to help Ministers. We want to offer positive guidance and advice, and to support them where they are right. For example, we would welcome the publication of the Government’s cross-departmental green economy road map. Businesses need to know what the Government’s long-term strategy for tackling climate change is. They need to make investment and research decisions free from doubt about the Government letting them down. I tabled a question about that earlier this month, and was told that we would have the green economy road map before the end of July. However, with two more sitting days of Parliament, we are getting close to the wire. Indeed, perhaps that is why Parliament is sitting on Wednesday—so that we can see that document before the end of July. Frankly, the Minister had better hurry up if we are to meet that deadline. However, more important than what this House receives is that businesses up and down the country know what is coming, because further delay will cost orders and jobs. Up and down the country, people tell me on the doorstep that they want jobs, and green jobs are a real opportunity, so will the Minister give the House an assurance this evening that this important document—the green economy road map—will see the light of day? Will he commit himself to a date?
	The national policy statements do not adequately address the energy market, the price of energy and the price hikes that our constituents face this summer. We on the Opposition Benches want to see an independent energy advisory committee, akin to the Committee on Climate Change, to advise Ministers on everything from the carbon floor price to energy auctions. We are talking about a body to advise Ministers along the lines of the Committee on Climate Change, but we look forward to the Government perhaps coming up with proposals based on our suggestion, because people have lost faith in Ministers standing up to the big six energy companies. Six energy companies control 99.9% of the consumer market, so how does the Minister intend to protect consumers and tackle fuel poverty?
	This is increasingly a Government losing control, distracted by events and unable to deliver their programme. There may be good intent, but there is a lack of clout across Whitehall and a lack of ability to bring other Departments to the green energy and future green jobs table. As someone who is committed to this issue, I fear that we are in danger of seeing wasted years in the battle against climate change, which future generations will not forgive or forget.

Gregory Barker: This has been an excellent debate. I am sorry that we have not had more time, but we have managed to cover an extraordinary amount, and I will do my best to deal with the interventions and speeches we have heard.
	Investment in new energy infrastructure is crucial to secure a clean, green, affordable and reliable energy supply for both British business and British consumers in the challenging decades ahead, but we are asking a
	lot of this transformation. It must drive growth, not hamper it; it must underpin the industrial competitiveness of the UK, not threaten it; it must drive technological change, competition and consumer choice; it must incentivise the private sector, but also deliver value for money to the hard-pressed consumer; and wherever possible, it must work with, not against, the grain of local opinion and communities, as has come through loud and clear in various interventions this evening. For the first time, these national policy statements set out clearly and transparently how the coalition’s energy policies will inform decisions on applications for development consent for major energy infrastructure projects.
	The hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) treated us to their usual music hall turn and their usual party politics. I appreciate the broad consensus that exists on the substance of the NPS.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: I will in just a moment.
	It would be easy to dwell on the divisions that exist. If the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch will forgive me, I intend to skip past the cheap party political points. Instead, I look forward, after nine months, to hearing her first speech on any substantive policy initiatives that she might have. We expect the green economy road map to be published before the end of July, so she will no doubt be able to get her press release out welcoming its publication before she goes away for some sunshine.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: I am not going to give way; the hon. Gentleman has not spoken in the debate, and in the time I have left I want to deal with the contributions that have been made.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) criticised the delays in bringing forward the national policy statements. He is absolutely right to say that there have been delays, but they occurred under the Labour Government because the original NPSs, which were signed off by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—hon. Members might recognise his picture in the document here—were riddled with inaccuracies and errors and had to be worked on again. I am glad, however, that we have now produced the NPSs, that broad consensus exists on them, and that we can now plough ahead. That sends an important signal for investment.

Albert Owen: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: I want to press on. If I can give way a little later, I will, but there have been a lot of contributions and I want to try to respond to them.
	The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) were among those who raised their significant concerns about the potential for an expansion
	of incineration. I understand the gut instinct against energy from waste, but we must recognise that it has moved on significantly over the past decade and now involves a wide range of different technologies. The important thing to remember about any form of energy-from-waste technologies is that they sit at the very bottom of the waste hierarchy. Before we reach that point, we must first ensure that there is waste prevention and reduction, as well as reuse and recycling. We must prepare for recycling and recovery and, ultimately, if there is no other use for the waste, we can turn to the responsible creation of energy from waste.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough pointed out, however, we must take account of local opinion. This NPS is only a framework. Were there no framework for energy from waste in it, a free-for-all could be created. The NPS creates a framework in which these decisions can be made; it does not necessarily mean that there will be an automatic presumption in favour of energy from waste.

Dai Havard: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: I am going to take interventions towards the end of my speech if I have time.
	The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) made some important points about fishing, and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) will be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of transmission charging. We recognise that a new structure will be required for a whole host of new generation technologies, which will be in different locations from before. In creating that structure, we will need new grid connections and a fair and progressive charging regime that will enable investment.
	The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) raised his concern about wind farms. He made an important point, but I cannot comment on individual schemes. It is a requirement of the planning regime, however, that cumulative impacts such as we see in locations in the north-east are considered in total. We would expect the local planning authority to set out important local issues in its local impact report, just as we also want host communities for these installations to reap the benefits of taking these assets into their communities.
	Let me deal now with the issue of nuclear. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has spoken with great passion on this subject over many years; I do not expect that I am going to sway him tonight, but I do greatly respect his sincerity on this issue. He gave a rousing speech and some of his concerns were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I do not know whether he is a new convert, but I also recognise his sincerity and I share his passion for a more decentralised energy economy and for the need to push forward with renewables, which have so much to offer the UK.

Dai Havard: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: In just a moment. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion also spoke about nuclear.

Dai Havard: Strategy and policy—wonderful stuff. The relationship between incineration, the planning process and energy generation is clearly a matter of debate within the Government. We need an understanding of their way of describing it. Will Ministers thus agree to meet a cross-party delegation of people who have concerns about, or information on, this policy area so that we could inform the discussion and debate as it happens?

Gregory Barker: Of course I will. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will also be delighted to meet such a delegation. We recognise the strongly held opinions in this area and the fact that profound local impacts are at stake, so it is absolutely right to listen to a range of parliamentary opinion on the subject.
	Returning to the nuclear issue, as the cheapest large-scale, low-carbon source of generation, nuclear should be part of the mix—so long as it is without public subsidy. The NPS deals only with direct planning issues; all the other issues—decommissioning, waste, insurance, safety—are outside the NPS framework. They fall to other frameworks, but I can give the assurance that robust regimes are in place for all those issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) was deeply sceptical about the whole renewables agenda. I respect his sincerity, but no one in this House—not even the most zealous climate change zealot!—would suggest that we could run the whole UK energy economy on wind power alone. Wind can be part only of a much bigger mix of renewables and other forms of generation, and there is no one single form of generation on which we want to be dependent. That includes nuclear. I remind my right hon. Friend that, last year, Sizewell B was out of operation for seven months, during which time wind powered about 500,000 homes. The important thing is to have a properly balanced energy sector and to get ourselves progressively off the oil and gas hook so that we do not see the constant ratcheting up of fuel bills, which we have seen recently with wholesale gas prices up 40% last year.
	We heard an extremely thoughtful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—a great champion not just for nuclear, but of the whole green coast.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) about his sustained campaign against offshore wind. I appreciate how strongly he feels on this issue, but I point out that the NPS framework is not responsible; the problem lies really with the Welsh Assembly, which has zoned areas for wind farm development—technical advice note 8 areas—focusing developers’ interests in areas such as Montgomeryshire. It is at the Welsh Assembly that my hon. Friend’s ire should be directed, but we of course listen clearly to the messages he sends.
	The national policy statements are another example of the coalition gripping the modern energy agenda. They constitute a major step towards reversal of decades of neglect and delay.
	The Deputy Speaker put the Question s necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time  (Order, 11 July).
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), which was laid before this House on 23 June.

National Policy Statements (Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure)

Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2), which was laid before this House on 23 June.— (Mr Hendry.)

NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS (RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE)

Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which was laid before this House on 23 June.—(Mr Hendry.)

National Policy Statements (Gas Supply Infrastructure And Gas And Oil Pipelines)

Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4), which was laid before this House on 23 June.— (Mr Hendry.)

National Policy Statements (Electricity Networks Infrastructure)

Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5), which was laid before this House on 23 June.—(Mr Hendry.)

National Policy Statements (Nuclear Power Generation)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), which was laid before this House on 23 June.—(Mr Hendry.)
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 267, Noes 14.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), which was laid before this House on 23 June.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

George Young: I beg to move,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 21 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr David Laws, Mr Peter Lilley, David Mowat, Mr George Mudie and Mr David Ruffley be members of the Committee.
	The Government are anxious to subject more Bills to pre-legislative scrutiny and as a result we are publishing more Bills in draft. The draft Financial Services Bill was presented to the House on 16 June, and we now want to make progress and to nominate the Commons membership of the Joint Committee on the Bill. Our proposal was blocked on an earlier occasion, hence we have tabled the motion before us.
	We believe that the quality of legislation is enhanced if more Bills can be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I am disappointed that a small minority of Labour members are seeking to stop the effective scrutiny of this legislation by blocking the motion. It is for the parties to nominate who represents them on such Committees, and it is a shame that Back-Bench Members are seeking to frustrate a position that has been agreed between the parties and, with their amendment, to skew the balance of the Committee towards the Opposition.

Thomas Docherty: Does the Leader of the House recall that on four occasions last week Members objected to the motion? There were plenty of opportunities, if he had wished to do so, to engage in a discussion about what the problem was. Surely, if the Government had come to discuss this with relevant Members of the Opposition, this matter could have been resolved before tonight.

George Young: No, there is a convention that the nomination of Members to Joint Committees such as this are made by the political parties. That is the procedure that we have followed in this case and I regret that some Members have sought to frustrate that process.
	It is the Government’s hope that this very important Bill will now be given the pre-legislative scrutiny it deserves and that these wrecking tactics will stop. I commend the motion to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House that the amendment has been selected.

Hilary Benn: I rise to speak briefly to the motion. I agree with the Leader of the House that the Bill is extremely important and raises profound questions about the regulation of the financial services industry and the accountability of the new arrangements. It is important that the Joint Committee gets on with its work and I, like the right hon. Gentleman, am a strong supporter of scrutiny of this sort. As he has said, it is rather unusual for the House to debate such a Committee’s membership—an issue that ought to be quite straightforward.
	Let me come to the heart of the matter concerning the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), as he is the subject of the amendment that some hon. Members have tabled. Hon. Members will recall that following the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges’ report on the right hon. Member for Yeovil and its findings against him, he came to the House on 12 May and made a personal statement, prior to his suspension from the House, and apologised. Now that the House has dealt with this case, whether Members agree or disagree with the outcome of the Standards and Privileges Committee process, seeking to withhold membership of a Committee as a means of taking further action against a Member is a difficult course for the House to pursue. After all, there may be other Members to whom some Members wish to object on other grounds when it comes to the membership of future Committees. We do not generally approach the putting together of Committees on that basis and it is not sensible to do so in this case. Either we are equal in this place or we are not.

Thomas Docherty: I beg to move, amendment (a), in line 14, leave out ‘Mr David Laws’. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I hear cries of “shame” from the Chancellor’s former chief of staff, from the Liberal Democrat Whip and from many other members of the coalition Government. I took some advice this afternoon about the rules of this procedure because I wanted to be very clear about what I may or may not refer to. I have received clear advice that I may refer to the content of the recent report of the Standards and Privileges Committee and that I may make some general observations, but you will probably agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I would not be allowed to make accusations about an hon. Member that are not referred to in the report, and I will proceed on that basis.
	The Bill is one of the most important Bills that the Government are introducing. I do not say that just because I have had a chance to glance through the weighty tome that the Government have introduced but because one of the great debates that the House will have in this Session is about how we can better regulate our financial industry. Without doubt there was a failure to regulate it in the previous Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am sure that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) will nod away to that.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend says that regulation failed, and there were loud cheers from the Government Benches, but did not Members on the Government Benches call for less regulation of the financial services industry?

Thomas Docherty: Once again, my hon. Friend anticipates my next sentence. I was about to remind the hon. Member for Devizes, if she were paying attention to the debate, that when she was penning speeches for her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for the now Prime Minister, they on more than one occasion decried the fact that there was too much regulation of the financial services industry. The House does not need reminding that the hon. Lady and her cohorts believed that if we had less regulation, we would have a better financial services industry.

Claire Perry: Rubbish.

Thomas Docherty: But I refer the hon. Lady to the speeches that she used to pen for the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he got some better speechwriters, when he used to say, “You may say we have too much regulation—and I agree.” So the Bill—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As hon. Members know, the debate is quite tight and we are stretching it beyond where we need to be. If we can come back to points that are more relevant, I am sure the House will be happier.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That allows me to pose a question to the Leader of the House. My understanding of the Order Paper is that the debate may continue beyond 10 pm. I am not sure of the mechanism that would be adopted, but my understanding is that the Government would like the debate to have the opportunity, if necessary, to continue beyond 10 pm. If that has been withdrawn, I would be grateful for clarification from the Chair.
	The Leader of the House said in his brief yet succinct remarks that if we were to change the balance of the Committee, that would give the Opposition parties control of the Committee. I did not have the benefits of the wonderful education of many Members on the Government Benches because I grew up under the previous Conservative Government, but by my maths there would still be three members of the Conservative party and two members of the Opposition on the Committee. The Government would still have a majority. They are perfectly entitled to nominate a new member, if they choose to do so, and we would support a suitable candidate. Perhaps in his rush to get his suntan creams and holiday brochures out, the Leader of the House had not quite checked the membership of the Committee.

John Mann: Would my hon. Friend like to take the opportunity to correct the record and the rather uncharitable statement made by the Leader of the House that those supporting the amendment are in some way attempting to undermine pre-legislative scrutiny? Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny at a much earlier stage in previous Parliaments, some of the issues in the financial sector may not have been as profound as they have been?

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is correct. I am baffled and I would happily take clarification from the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House as to how removing one member of the Committee is tantamount to seeking to thwart the business of the
	House. My understanding—I am sure the Deputy Speaker would correct me if I was wrong—is that the Committee would still be quorate and would still be competent.
	I look at the names of some members of the Committee and see good, learned and wise individuals from both sides of the House. At least one member, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is present in the Chamber to hear the discussion. The Committee consists of a competent set of Members from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) is a long-standing member of the Treasury Committee.

David Mowat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in referring to me. He is going through the list of people nominated to the Committee. How many of them does he think know more about international financial services than the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws)?

Thomas Docherty: I will shortly move on to the thrust of my argument and come to the issue of the complications or otherwise for the Committee. We do not seek to thwart the aspects of pre-legislative scrutiny, but we do object to the Government’s choice of one specific individual to sit on the Committee. As I said, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will have before us in this Session, and possibly in this Parliament. One point on which both sides of the House would genuinely agree is that over the past few years there was a failing in the scrutiny and regulation of the financial industry. We can argue about who was more to blame for that and about light-touch regulation, or lighter regulation still—[ Interruption. ] I hear the chuntering from various sedentary positions, and were I to stray too far into the previous Government’s financial regulation regime, I suspect that you, Mr Speaker, might pull me up on that.
	This is about probity. Ultimately, this comes down to whether or not somebody—I refer to the Standards and Privileges Committee’s report—who was found to have had a serious lack of judgement, who knowingly and wilfully misled the Fees Office and who took significant sums of money, as the report states, is in fact a fit and proper person to sit on a Committee that will scrutinise the new financial services regime. I do not intend to read out the whole report and will stick very closely to the subject of the—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I must emphasise to him and to the House that this is not a debate on the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), and it certainly cannot be a rehashing, reworking or reiteration of the contents of a particular report. This is a debate on the establishment of a Joint Committee. Members are entitled to comment on whether they think the Committee should be established and, if they do not think that it should be or wish to amend its composition, to explain why. A general ad hominem attack on a particular individual is not the purpose of the debate and cannot become its substance. I know that the hon. Gentleman will speedily redirect his remarks in an entirely orderly way.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Obviously I took some very senior counsel this afternoon from Officers of the House, as you are aware, on how to stay in bounds and perhaps go offside, to use the modern—

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, whatever senior counsel he sought and obtained, he can on this occasion make do with mine.

Thomas Docherty: I always have great respect for your counsel, Mr Speaker, and obviously do not seek a time when you might perhaps be advising other Parliaments in other parts of the country, or other parts of the world. [Interruption.]

John Mann: If I could hear myself speak, I would ask my hon. Friend whether he would care to comment on the fact that the constituency of Yeovil is an English constituency, whether he has considered the make-up of the Committee that is proposed, whether he perceives that it will in fact be an English Committee, rather than a United Kingdom one, and what the potential consequences might be, not least for his constituents, of that happening in such a biased way.

Thomas Docherty: I obviously look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution in due course.
	I must say that I thought the cracks about monkeys and organ grinders that the hon. Member for Devizes made did nothing to raise the standard of the debate, but as she used to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer I expected nothing more, because her speeches were never that good when she worked for him. It is important that we look at whether the people who are being put forward in general are of a correct measure. The hon. Member for Warrington South, who I think is now detained elsewhere, asked about the qualifications needed for serving on the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I are equally concerned about what qualifications should or may bar an individual Member from serving on the Committee. Having read from cover to cover the Standards and Privileges Committee report, and having read the introduction to the draft Bill prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team about the need for financial probity and for a new set of regulations, I have severe doubts about whether one member of the Committee is adequately suited to the task.
	In a week when Parliament has had to deal with some very severe accusations levelled against members of the Government and against members of Her Majesty’s police forces, when we have seen former special advisers being placed under arrest, and when Government Members simply argue, as I have heard them do today, that we will take people on the basis of the assurances they have given although they are under active police investigation, the public will look at this Committee and say that it beggars belief.

Julian Huppert: It has been said several times that the past week has seen Parliament at its best. How would the hon. Gentleman describe what he is doing now?

Thomas Docherty: If the hon. Gentleman thinks back over the past 12 months, he will recall that my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have almost single-handedly ploughed a furrow in highlighting an issue. Government Members heckled and shouted them down, and accused them of launching personal attacks on the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be led astray into a spontaneous panegyric to his hon. Friends. He must focus very much on the matter in hand, which is the Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services Bill—quite a narrow brief, albeit an important one.

Thomas Docherty: Obviously, Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) led me down a very tempting path, and I will do my best not to be drawn down it again.
	The draft Bill is a phenomenally large document. I am sure that on your evenings off, Mr Speaker, when you are drinking a glass of mulled wine, you will have had a chance to flick through its contents. It is a wide-ranging Bill that seeks, rightly, radically to overhaul our financial services industry. It is therefore right that the individuals from both Houses who are tasked with providing the legislative scrutiny are properly scrutinised themselves, because we are placing a huge amount of trust in their hands. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that if I were to go too far into the issue of trust you would rightly pull me up for it.

Robert Halfon: Members of both parties were implicated in various expenses issues. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that members of his own party who were so implicated should not serve on any Committee either?

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. As a new Member who unseated a former Member who had to pay back thousands of pounds, I am very much alive to these issues. I absolutely believe that if someone is forced to pay back £56,000 to which they were not entitled because they had knowingly misled the taxpayer—the Fees Office—they should be excluded from being a Member who oversees the new financial services regulation. That goes to the heart of the issue. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, I respect that, but I hope that he will indicate that that is his view. I do not see him indicating dissent, so I assume that he agrees.

John Spellar: My hon. Friend is focusing largely on the Commons composition of the Committee. Does he believe that the Lords composition makes it any broader or, to take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), any more representative?

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for debate in this Chamber tonight.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful, as ever, Mr Speaker, for your counsel. Of course, that is a debate for another time. As the Leader of the House is listening, perhaps we will have a discussion in future about the joint membership of the Committee and both Houses will be required to give their agreement, but that is not the issue before us today.
	On no fewer than four occasions over the past seven days, the Government Whips have tried to slip this motion through literally on the nod at the end of the
	evening. On each occasion, an hon. Gentleman has objected.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	It was an hon. Gentleman, as it was me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Unless the hon. Member for Cambridge knows something I do not, I am fairly confident that I can refer to myself and my hon. Friend as gentlemen.
	On each of those occasions, a number of brief back-channel discussions took place between various members of the Treasury Bench—I will not name them, even if they are here—about what was going on. They are fully aware of what this has been about. It was entirely a matter for those on the Treasury Bench. If they did not wish to have this debate tonight, they could have approached us to see whether there was substance to our objection, but they chose not to do so. Indeed, one member of the Treasury Bench thought that we were objecting to our own Members.

Mike Hancock: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain what he would have accepted from the Treasury Bench.

Thomas Docherty: That is a very good question. I am looking at the many Liberal Democrats who are here tonight. I see the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has a long track record in business, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who is a new Member, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). All of them have had a distinguished service in the House for various lengths of time, all of them have experienced careers outside the House, and crucially, all of them have constituents who have suffered from the failures of financial regulation in the last Parliament. If the Treasury Bench had genuinely offered any other member of the Liberal Democrat party to be a member of the Committee, I would have been happy.

Mike Hancock: As that is the case and the hon. Gentleman wants to have the last word on who serves on the Committee, why did he not put another name forward?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for that question. Obviously, I will not have the last word. Indeed, I imagine that you, Mr Speaker, will have the last word when you read out the result of the Division that may occur later. Having taken advice from senior officers in the House, it is my understanding, although I have not checked the latest edition of “Erskine May”—the 24th edition, which was edited by the Clerk of the House, is out now and is a snip at £295—that Labour Members would not be allowed to put forward the name of a Liberal Democrat Member without their express consent. I fully understand why a Liberal Democrat Member would not seek publicly to undermine their parliamentary colleague and I respect that. It would be for the Government Whips to approach Liberal Democrat Members.

John Mann: My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of one of the key issues. Is not the dilemma that, when wishing to amend a Standing Committee or any other Committee of the House, the modernisation of this place has not gone far enough for anything other than
	the usual channels to determine such things? It is only in the last year that Select Committees have been elected by the House. Modernisation has only gone so far. In raising such matters in the House, we are rather trapped in the antiquated systems of how we can object.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will know that I am a member of the Procedure Committee, which is the successor to the Modernisation Committee. I have the privilege to serve with a number of the members of that Committee. He is right to say that this is something that I take a particularly keen—[ Interruption. ] I will give way.

Mike Hancock: I am interested to know how the hon. Gentleman managed to achieve a place on that Committee.

Thomas Docherty: I think that you will correct me, Mr Speaker, if in my youthful naivety I have misunderstood the system. The Committee of Selection considers names, and those are put forward to the House for its approval. I think—again, you will correct me, Mr Speaker, if I am not fully aware of the procedure as a naive new Member—that the House had an opportunity to vote on that.

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the House requires a disquisition on his career trajectory, which resulted in his ultimate elevation to membership of the Procedure Committee. I am sure it is a matter of very great interest, but it can be kept for the long winter evenings.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps over a glass of mulled wine, Mr Speaker. I was simply answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, but my point is that my appointment was subject to a vote of the whole House, and it was approved. [Interruption.] I suspect that with my career trajectory going downwards, as hon. Members suggest, that would not necessarily happen again.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is entirely right that we need to modernise the procedure. It is unfortunate that Members are being detained, and I do not wish to detain the House any longer—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had so much support from the Government parties. All I would say is that it is entirely regrettable that, although the Government Whips may say otherwise, they were intransigent in not being prepared to have even a single formal conversation with Opposition Members to see whether a solution could be found. It is regrettable that Members are being kept from their mulled wine, so with that I will sit down with no further ado.

John Mann: It is with pleasure that I address such a packed House. Having sat through and participated in a significant number of debates since the general election, I cannot recall on any occasion, even when there have been debates on so-called fundamental reform of the constitution by the Deputy Prime Minister, seeing so many Liberal Democrats present. I heard someone say from a sedentary position that this was Parliament at its worst, but it is a good sign of democracy for this type of debate to have so many active would-be participants. I welcome the Liberal Democrats into the
	House in such large numbers, and it is good to see that their coalition partners wish to see some balance and to be informed by the debate.
	I hope that we can have the full, thorough and proper debate that the House has lacked in relation to the establishment of such Committees, which are a new venture for the House. They should generally be welcomed, but the Leader of the House and his shadow exemplified the bind that we are in, as democratic politicians in this House, when we attempt to amend anything in any way that has not gone through the “usual channels”.

Thomas Docherty: I did not get a chance to notice this while I was speaking—following the rules, I was looking at you, Mr Speaker—but has my hon. Friend noticed that one of the chief cheerleaders tonight is a Liberal Democrat Whip?

John Mann: We take the view that all Members of the House are equal, which is an important principle, so the ability to participate and influence should be equal. It is ironic, therefore, that when it comes to the selection of Committee members some are more equal than others. It seems to me that as we have started a modernisation process that is very slowly beginning to trickle through the House, after many years of waiting, that issue needs proper attention.
	It is rather a shame that someone needs to table an amendment even to get the issue on to the Floor of the House. The Government were not going to allocate any time to debating this important Committee, its make-up, whether we should have it at all, the timetable allocated to it, the role of the House of Lords within it, whether the Lords should have a role in financial matters, or the issue of England versus the rest when it comes to the membership of the Committee. None of that could have been debated unless my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and myself had chosen to learn the rules and object at 10 o’clock on a number of occasions over the past week, and then to table an amendment. By its nature, that amendment has forced the Government to create time for this debate.
	It is a little odd that the Government are seeking to have unlimited time for this debate, which can continue till any hour, when we have just debated major energy statements—a fundamental issue for each and every hon. Member and our constituents—with speech limits of five minutes per Member. That seems to me a poor allocation of time, but it is another example of the impotence of the Back Bencher in attempting to influence what goes on in here.
	I do not court favour, and I never have, with any side of the House. Indeed, on some issues, on some occasions, I have been in a vocal but rather small all-party minority. When the expenses issue was first emerging, and this House was refusing to deal with it and was still not totally on top of it, the usual channels—or what I termed the “gentleman’s club”—were a hindrance to democracy and to our relationship with our voters.

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking a very high moral tone, but as a person who has been serially rebuked by the Standards and Privileges Committee, is he therefore ruling himself out of any future Committee membership?

John Mann: Mr Speaker, I do think that it would be appropriate to respond directly to the inaccuracies in the comments just made. However, there is an important point—

Claire Perry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Mann: I shall give way in a minute.
	There is an important point about who should be a Back Bencher and who should remain a Back Bencher, because within the House, some will always be fated to be Back Benchers, often at the behest of their party leader. In power, party leaders love to exercise the power to choose who will be in ministerial positions or sit on Committees and the rest. However, on occasion there is perhaps a democratic requirement that some people should choose to be Back Benchers, or be chosen to be Back Benchers, for the length of a Parliament. It can be quite cathartic, as a politician, to spend one’s time—

Mr Speaker: Order. This is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman either to dilate or to rhapsodise about the merits of Back-Bench life. Anybody would think that he was seeking to imitate his hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and to pen a book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”. He is welcome to do that, but if he wishes to do so, he must do so outside the Chamber.

John Mann: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for redirecting me following my aberration after that intervention.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) accused my hon. Friend of taking a high moral tone, but does he agree that surely a high moral tone is to be preferred to a low moral tone?

John Mann: I am attempting simply to put across a few views that I believe would appropriately reflect the views of my constituents. I am putting no tone—high, low or otherwise—into this debate.
	Members are elected to come and put forward in this House what we think appropriate. One thing that my constituents, and therefore I, would not regard as appropriate, and which the House overall should not regard as appropriate, is having a Joint Committee made up exclusively of English members. A Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services Bill that reflects this House, in the way that Select Committees do, ought to be more reflective of the entirety of the UK, and not just of England. I say that with some irony, because I am one of those who has argued that the English voice has been understated in this House.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many financial services jobs are based in Edinburgh?

John Mann: Our colleagues from every corner of Scotland, not just Edinburgh, are always rightly happy to demonstrate the importance of financial services—

Thomas Docherty: It may assist my hon. Friend to learn that I have more than 2,000 people working in the banking industry in my constituency, not to mention
	the thousands who make the lovely commute every morning over the bridges to Edinburgh.

John Mann: I put it to my hon. Friend that it would be an own goal by this Parliament, not least considering the job losses in the Royal Bank of Scotland and other institutions in Scotland and elsewhere, to go ahead with this Committee with only English members. One of the niceties—

Gordon Birtwistle: The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned by the lack of members from Scotland. There are two Labour members on the Committee, so perhaps one of them could be replaced by a member from Scotland. That would resolve the problem without bothering about any other party.

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. There are other reasons why, when considering altering the balance of the Committee to represent the balance in Parliament more appropriately, we picked a Liberal Democrat to remove, not a replacement from my party. No replacement will be required if this resolution is passed, as I hope it will be. One of the consequences would be that the Government could rethink the membership of the Committee. The question of how many members, and the balance from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—

Thomas Docherty: And the gender balance.

John Mann: I was just about to come to that point.

Matthew Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

John Mann: I have only just begun on it, but I will give way.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman started his very long speech by saying that all Members were equal, but all his points so far contradict that principle. Can he not just end it?

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman is rather intemperate. Here we are having a good and important debate, and I anticipated an informed intervention from him. Instead, he merely wishes to curtail debate on equality. That says something about these new Conservatives, the partners of the Liberal Democrats—

Stewart Hosie: I am all in favour of gender balance on Committees, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Treasury Committee, which has only one lady member. I do not recall him ever making the point that he or his Labour colleagues—all of whom are men, of course—should be replaced by women.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman is not an hon. Friend of mine—to use the parliamentary language—so he is not privy to the debates and discussions in the parliamentary Labour party. However, I assure him, and the House, that this is an issue that I have raised. It is one of the traps that the House has set for itself, in the
	same way as it has with this motion. How do we achieve gender balance? I intend to make some suggestions about what we can do if the amendment is passed, and why that is so important.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his party has just had the opportunity to appoint a new member to the Treasury Committee, but it did not take the opportunity to appoint a woman. We were joined by another Labour man for the first time today. The hon. Gentleman claims to be concerned about gender balance, but this rather spiteful amendment would have been better if it had proposed such a balance, rather than being a veiled attack on one hon. Member.

John Mann: There is nothing veiled or spiteful about it. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw her allegation. As she should know, being a woman on the Treasury Committee, the power is not there—
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9( 3 )).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.  15 ),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee) shall be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— (Mr  Dunne .)
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 297, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee).—(Mr Goodwill.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 290, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Debate resumed.
	Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it usual or in order for Front-Bench Members to both shout and object on matters that are Back-Bench objections? I gather that the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and others may have objected in order to force the last vote, but it is my understanding that that is not the normal convention.

Mr Speaker: The issue is whether there is an objection. There are matters that some people, including the right hon. Gentleman, might deem unusual, and that may be so in terms of party combat, but that does not necessarily have an implication for the conduct of proceedings in Parliament or for the judgment of the Chair. That said, the right hon. Gentleman has put his point squarely on the record.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Going one stage further as one of those Members who have, perhaps, been around for longer than we ought to have been, am I right that there is a convention that votes follow voices, but that is not invariably the case?

Mr Speaker: It is not, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has been around for longer than he ought to have been. [Interruption.] I am not wishing his untimely end, notwithstanding the sedentary dissent of the Patronage Secretary.

John Mann: As I was saying, equality is a fundamental issue in respect of Treasury matters. The make-up of this Committee reinforces and exemplifies an historical bias on equality that is a significant bar to effective decision making cross-party and over many generations. One only needs to look at the fact that Chancellors of the Exchequer have been male throughout the centuries. Therefore, in the modern era when all parties rightly, and with increasing success, are bringing women forward into Parliament, this Committee’s membership demonstrates an old-fashionedness and backdatedness that this House should not endorse tonight.
	This gets to the nub of the gentleman’s club and the way in which decisions are being made and have been made. I suspect that no such discussions on equality
	took place as the names were put forward, and that, in fact, the different parties put forward their names in accordance with the usual time-honoured, historical tradition, and nobody then took an overview. I suspect that the bias against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland came about in exactly the same way.

Bob Stewart: Based on this argument, I am surprised that two male Members have tabled this amendment. Surely 50% of them should have been female, but I do not think that that is the case.

John Mann: It is good that serious interventions are being made. On Treasury matters, there is a historical bias going back over the centuries, but this Parliament has not got to grips with it. We made exactly the same mistakes when establishing the Select Committees. The usual channels have brought forward names and those names are not reflective of the House or the country. That is a fundamental weakness.

Harriett Baldwin: Will the hon. Gentleman be moving on to the next point, which is the disproportionate number of people called David on this Committee?

John Mann: I will not be making frivolous points about the forename or surname of any of the Members put forward for this Committee. However, the question of gender balance is not going to be knocked off the agenda so easily, because it is fundamental to the whole workings of Parliament. If Parliament in the modern era is portraying itself through one of the very first Joint scrutiny Committees to be established and the elected House of Commons manages to get itself in a bind whereby all the Members put forward are English males, we are letting the country down. We are also letting down the principle of modernisation, which, superficially at least, is shared by those on both sides of the House. If we are really trying to encourage a wider array of people to take an interest in this House and, in future years, to stand for this House, how we portray ourselves in the Committees that we create is a fundamental principle.
	I put it to the House: in what other way can the House manifest its commitment to an inclusive Parliament—a Parliament that is representative of all parts of the country, of all sections of the country and of both sides of the gender division within the country? There is a fundamental point at issue, which the Government, in failing to give proper time to have this proposal debated, are shying away from. That is a weakness at the heart of government.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. Has he considered the idea that in the future it might be helpful if a statement were attached to each name, spelling out what the usual channels felt were the Member’s qualifications for this Committee or for the Select Committees?

John Mann: No, I disagree with my hon. Friend. Others were arguing in interventions—they are welcome to make the point at greater length in debate if they wish—that this Committee should be based on experts, but that is a fundamental flaw of logic. The idea that it
	has to be bankers and specialist economists who investigate, make decisions on our behalf and carry out pre-legislative scrutiny and that the basis of these bodies should be some academic prowess or past profession is part of the old school and the gentlemen’s club. There is no reason why those from manual working backgrounds or care backgrounds should not also be able to participate in making such decisions as effectively as anyone else as members of these Committees.
	When the world looks in, and, in particular, our constituents look in, and we examine how far we have modernised or not modernised, as exemplified by the failure in the make-up of this Committee, we find, at the very end of the first part-year of this Parliament and as we go into the summer recess, that the problem is magnified. We are talking about one of the last decisions made by Parliament before the recess. It is a recess that some believe is too long—I tend to share that view—but through which this Joint Committee will apparently be working. If that is the signal we send out to the country of how we see the modern world and financial services and how we intend to influence such services, it undermines our ability to do the kind of things we want to, although we disagree on the precise remedies. To remove such influence from ourselves and to weaken ourselves by having such an unrepresentative Committee is fundamentally flawed, but other weaknesses in the make-up of the Committee must be explored.
	One such weakness is the fact that the balance between Government and Opposition does not reflect the balance in Parliament. That seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. There may or may not be a desire to have votes in the Committee, but, as regards the contribution, input and perspectives raised when four of the members come from the Government side and two from the combined Opposition side, that distribution does not seem to be democratic or appropriate. It does not reflect the election results.

Peter Bottomley: Unless the number of members is increased, changing the balance by one person from 4:2 to 3:3 brings equality, which does not reflect the present situation in the House of Commons, does it?

John Mann: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but there is no suggestion of any name being added—certainly not from me. The suggestion is merely to remove one name to create a better balance of 3:2. Of course, one never could and never should attempt to use an entirely mathematical equation to resolve such matters, but the principle that the balance in Committees should reflect the balance in the elected House is surely one this House would have to abide by. The hon. Gentleman is right; there could have been other ways of doing this, such as adding another member, but it seems to me that adding another member, perhaps from one of the smaller parties, is rather a hostage to fortune, because we must ask which Member it would be and from which party. Back Benchers could not simply be nominated at random without some process to enable consultation—the very consultation that the Government failed properly to carry out for this Committee. We all know why the make-up of the Committee is as it is and what the Government’s agenda is.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not recall the exchange between me and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), who is no longer in his place. I explicitly said that we would expect and hope that the Liberal Democrat party would offer a fresh name in the coming days.

Menzies Campbell: That is inconsistent.

John Mann: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, from a sedentary position, says that that is inconsistent, but there is no requirement for those proposing an amendment to agree on every remedy that would emanate from it.
	My purpose is not to make any comment on individual Members but to ensure that because there is a balance between the other place and this place the Government take the issue back and rethink the entire make-up of the Committee in order properly to reflect the Parliament that we have, the elections we have had and the modern world we live in. I seek no more than that, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who has added his name to the amendment, may have other, additional and different reasons. That does not negate the argument; indeed, one could argue that in a democracy it strengthens the case because there are different arguments from different perspectives with different options provided. The principle remains the same, however: it is invidious to have a balance of 4:2, four from the Government side and two from all the combined Opposition parties. However one looks at it, that in no way reflects the result of the last election.
	It seems to me rather demeaning for this Parliament to go into such a long summer recess with this Committee apparently sitting through it with such imbalance and such bias. This question of priority and of why the Committee is sitting through the summer is another reason why the amendment has been tabled. If the amendment was passed, one would hope that the Government would be forced to rethink at this late stage. They chose not to table the debate earlier, although they had the opportunity to do so, but one would hope that the time for reflection they would have over the recess would also mean that the proposal for this biased and unrepresentative group, in relation to the general election, to Parliament as a whole, to the nations of the United Kingdom, to the gender balance in the House, to democracy and to the world in which we live, could not happen. It seems to me a wrong priority in the month of August, when there are many important things that we could be deliberating and engaging on, for this Joint Committee to be establishing its work. A slight delay allowing the Government to rethink, reformulate and re-democratise the proposal would be wholly in order. I am sure that in their heart of hearts that is exactly what hon. Members are thinking tonight, having heard the arguments that have been put forward. No hon. Member would want to go into this long recess having taken a decision so unrepresentative of our country, our Parliament and the world in which we live.
	There is another fundamental issue at stake that has not yet been addressed, which the amendment would also allow reconsideration of—the giving away of financial control and powers to the other place. Important debates
	and deliberations on the future of the other place are currently going on, such as whether it should be partially elected—80% elected—how many should sit in it, where they should come from and what the time scale for reform should be. Those are all important issues, not least to parliamentarians in this House. Pre-empting that by giving financial powers to the other place—as the proposal is, in essence, a move towards doing—by having it scrutinise the draft Financial Services Bill jointly with this House is a start on a slippery slope in relation to the historical division on financial matters that has existed ever since democracy in this place was established. The proposal begins to unravel that and one might think that there are some within the coalition whose very agenda that is—those who want a proportionally elected second Chamber that has those financial powers. It seems to me that they have managed to sneak in, through this proposal at this late hour and this late stage—indeed, it would have been without this debate had we not tabled this amendment—potentially a constitutional issue of profound ramifications. It would mean handing over, albeit the very first semblance of doing so, financial powers, decision making powers and authority to a second Chamber that some want to become an elected Chamber in the very near future.
	There will be different views about that and I do not intend to go into what those views are—that is for another day—but it is relevant to the amendment to point out the consequences. Hon. Members who vote through this unwise, undemocratic, unegalitarian, anti-regions, anti-nations, badly thought out, badly timetabled, rushed and last-minute proposal will be opening this House to potential ridicule from future generations who come here. They will ask when was the moment when we handed over to the other place that first little bit of power in relation to financial matters. When did we allow the second Chamber—

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it to you that the question of the allocation of powers to the other place is completely outside the scope of the motion?

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was listening intently and I was about to say, which I shall now do, that we are concerning ourselves in this debate with the establishment, composition and remit of the draft Financial Services Bill Joint Committee, upon which subject the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is tabling and, I think, speaking to an amendment relating to a narrow part of the matter—namely, a particular member of the Committee. A wider dilation about possible future transfers of power, which might haunt the hon. Gentleman, are not subject matter for this evening’s debate, to which I know he will now return.

John Mann: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice. I seek your clarification on one important matter. It was my intention, as demonstrated by my previous remarks, to confine myself to one contribution, looking at the substantive motion as well as the amendment. I may be in error in so doing and may require a second speech. It was my intention to restrict myself to a single speech, and I seek your guidance in relation to that.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should proceed with his speech according to his own lights. It is not the normal practice of the Chair to conduct a running commentary on the speech of any hon. Member or to advise an hon. Member in advance of when he might inadvertently be about to slip beyond order. The hon. Gentleman can protect himself.

John Mann: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that helpful guidance.
	The final point that I wish to make in relation to the amendment is that the randomness of selection of an individual member to remove can have many motives and be for many reasons. This important proposal by the Government is fundamentally flawed in its make-up, as I have outlined, being English only and male only, with the Committee meeting as a priority during the summer and being a Joint Committee with the House of Lords.
	The weakness of the usual channels, inspired by Government and the Government’s timetabling, has meant that we have not been able to have this debate without amendment. I therefore urge that in future when such matters are before the House, they should not be tabled to be nodded through at 10 pm with no debate or require objections from individual Members or groups of Members in order to stop that process, requiring an amendment to allow a debate both on the amendment and on the issues underlying the make-up of the Committee and the flawed and biased decision of Government in that regard. That is the Government’s responsibility. We as a House have a responsibility to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they do not get away with such sloppiness in their programming of legislation that they put legislation—

Kelvin Hopkins: I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend seems to be coming to the end of his speech, which I am enjoying so much. Does he agree that there are far too many tight programme motions in the Chamber and that we should have more thorough debates to make sure that every point can be thoroughly discussed, as my hon. Friend is doing?

Mr Speaker: Order. That is a most interesting intervention, but sadly it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment, composition or remit of the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill.

John Mann: I shall therefore humbly ignore my hon. Friend’s intervention and conclude my remarks. As guardians of our democracy, albeit within the confines of the gentlemen’s club and the usual channels, and despite the weaknesses imposed upon us by the lack of modernisation, it is our responsibility and duty to expose flawed proposals, such as how the Government have unnaturally put together this unrepresentative and biased group without allowing us a debate that is timetabled in a proper and normal way. It is the Government’s responsibility to get that right, and I implore them to do so in future to save us having to object repeatedly at 10 o’clock at night to the flawed logic and bad politics that they have had to use—we all appreciate that it is a difficult time for the coalition—in order to try to hold these two ramshackle coalition partners together.

Kevan Jones: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). As he knows, I was born in his constituency, so I have a fond spot for the area in north Nottinghamshire that he represents. I wish to oppose his amendment, but also to raise some concerns about the motion.
	It is important that the work of the Committee focuses on the importance of getting this right. We all remember, certainly those of us from the north-east, that the first domino to fall in the financial crisis was Northern Rock. We saw people quite rightly queuing round the block, fearing for their savings and worrying what would come next. Getting regulation right will be very important, and therefore the work of the Committee will be very important not only for this generation, but for future generations.
	It is clear that this Government, the previous Government and the previous Conservative Government grappled with getting the balance right between regulation and having a free market that allows markets to generate the capital and finance that industry and individuals require. Therefore, the Committee will be very important. The task we have set it, in quite a short time scale, which I will come on to in a minute, is rather intriguing. It is a little like the ark of the covenant, in the sense that I will be amazed if the Committee finds the perfect system for regulation.
	The nature of the Committee was referred to earlier. The Government brought forward the White Paper setting out the draft regulation. I am a big supporter of draft legislation. I do not think that the press and public have quite got a handle on it yet, because when Governments change draft legislation it is seen as a defeat for them, and that should not be seen as the way forward.

Kelvin Hopkins: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he not agree that more pre-legislative scrutiny would improve the quality of legislation and that we should have more of it?

Kevan Jones: I agree. To be honest, my answer to the question of the second Chamber is ultimately to vote to abolish it. I have always been a unicameralist and think that if we did the job here better we would get legislation that was not only better, but more timely and well drafted, and we would not have the theatricals that we have to go through with the other place.
	The draft legislation is being put forward and I welcome that process. I sat on one of the very first Joint Committees in 2003—the Joint Committee on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. As a new Member, that was a very good process and learning curve, because it included young and inexperienced Members of this House, such as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and myself, and Members of the House of Lords, such as Lord Archer, a former Solicitor-General, and Lord Condon, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They brought a wealth of experience to that process, which was a good one in that it could not be replicated by the usual way in which we conduct legislative scrutiny in this place. The most important thing was that out of the 130 amendments that were tabled, well over 100 were
	accepted. The important thing about this Committee will be whether it genuinely conducts pre-legislative scrutiny and whether the Government will really consider changing their proposals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw talked about the House of Lords. I feel uncomfortable not about joint legislative scrutiny with the House of Lords, which is a good process, but about having it for financial matters. That makes me a bit nervous. Not only the membership of the Committee from this House, but the selection process in the other place, which is nothing to do with us, as I well know, have not been thought through. Getting the balance right is a difficult job. The supremacy of this place in dealing with financial issues has to be maintained. I would not like, as my hon. Friend said, for this to be a chink in the armour that breaks the convention that this House, not the other place, deals with finance. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been glossed over in the way that the Government and the usual channels have put the process together. The Procedure Committee or others might want to look in detail at how such Joint Committees come into being. I would not want it to become a regular occurrence for Joint Committees, including those considering financial issues, to have Members of the other place sitting on them and determining what is taken forward.
	It will be difficult to get the Bill right. It will be like finding the ark of the covenant to find a regulatory system that everyone agrees with and that protects the public from the scenes that we saw a few years ago. It is interesting that we hear the Conservatives say these days that they are now for more regulation, even though in the 1980s they deregulated the financial markets and then called for less regulation when the previous Labour Government of whom I was a member were bringing in legislation.
	I am concerned about the short time scale that is being allowed for the Bill. The motion says that
	“the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.”
	We are about to go into a long recess and the Committee will have to work through that to keep to that timetable. I wonder why that date was inserted. Getting this right is more important than any headlines the Government wish to create so that they can say they have solved the problem of the regulation of the banks. The date needs to be reconsidered and the timetable extended.

Bernard Jenkin: If the date is so important, why did not the hon. Gentleman table his own amendment? Why does he think that the Committee that this House is about to appoint is incapable of reporting to the House if it feels that it has not completed its deliberations? Its members have a mind of their own—they do not need the supervision that he is attempting to give them.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit petulant—[ Interruption. ] Pedantic, even. I do not understand why. In my conversations with him, we have never agreed about anything, but we usually get on quite well.

John Spellar: My hon. Friend agrees with the hon. Gentleman about his Front Benchers’ defence policy.

Kevan Jones: Without wanting to be diverted by my right hon. Friend, I certainly do agree with the hon. Gentleman about defence expenditure and the shambles that this Government are making of defence, but I shall not digress on that.
	It is important that we get this right, so I do not think that having 1 December is right. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Committee will change the date if it wishes.
	We must look at what is being put forward. The motion states that the Committee shall have five powers:
	“to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; to appoint special advisers; and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.”
	I will go through each of those because they are relevant to the work of the Committee. On the power to send for persons, papers and records—

Alistair Carmichael: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 273, Noes 9.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
	Amendment negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved ,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 21 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr David Laws, Mr Peter Lilley, David Mowat, Mr George Mudie and Mr David Ruffley be members of the Committee.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England (Appointment)

[Relevant documents: the Ninth Report of the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2010-12, on Pre-appointment hearing for the post of  Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman , HC 1220; and the Tenth Report of the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2010-12, on Remuneration of the  Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman , Health Committee 1350.]

Nick Hurd: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion, on the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England:
	That, in the opinion of this House, the salary paid to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be £152,000 a year, a sum within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries in the civil service as required by section 2(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended by the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976; and that this should be subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay; and considers that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be agreed by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee in advance of the recruitment process, and reported to the House, prior to the House being invited to agree to an humble Address on such an appointment.

Nick Hurd: The first motion asks that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England. The second motion sets out the detail of her remuneration, and goes on to state that, in future, the remuneration for that role should be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee before the start of the recruitment exercise. Dame Julie will be appointed for a non-renewable fixed term of seven years.
	First and foremost, I wish to record the Government’s gratitude to Ann Abraham, who has undertaken the role of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman with great commitment, independence and integrity. She has done much over the past nine years to increase the understanding of the work of ombudsmen.
	The Government are also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and other members of the Public Administration Committee for their role in the selection of Dame Julie. In a departure from previous practice, the House has led on the appointment process, working in close
	co-operation with the Government. The Government are pleased that the new arrangement for the appointment of the ombudsman has worked well and delivered an excellent candidate in Dame Julie. The appointment process has included the PAC undertaking a pre-appointment hearing with Dame Julie. The recommendations contained in the Committee’s two reports, published following that hearing, form the basis of the Government’s two motions and I commend them to the House.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for his remarks and I also wish to take this opportunity to express the Opposition’s gratitude to Ann Abraham for her dedication and exemplary service throughout her period in office.
	We welcome the Government’s decision to open the process of selecting the new ombudsman to the scrutiny of Parliament, especially by moving the approval of the appointment to this House. The previous ombudsman was selected by an open competition managed by the Cabinet Office and the House was not able to debate the appointment. Today’s debate gives the ombudsman the fullest authority available and can only improve her position.
	We very much welcome the selection and appointment of Dame Julie Mellor to the post of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. She is a fantastic choice. I understand that there were a large number of applications of the highest quality, many with relevant experience in the sector, demonstrating the importance of the role and the responsibilities it demands. Julie has a reputation for strong leadership, including turning around failing public bodies and supporting staff teams to deliver more effectively and efficiently. She has 30 years’ experience of public services and business. She really demonstrates the skills necessary for this post, including strategic leadership, an ability to influence and effective communication. She has experience of corporate governance, commissioning and leadership.
	However, I have a few comments to make about the remuneration process. While we welcome the appointment of Dame Julie Mellor to this role, and support the Government’s decision to open up the process of appointment to parliamentary scrutiny, we have concerns that the same transparency and openness have not been extended to the ombudsman’s remuneration.
	The ombudsman has a quasi-judicial role as a result of their sole accountability for the decisions made and, as a result, for many years the ombudsman’s pay has been set within the permanent secretary pay band at the point equivalent to that of a High Court judge. The Government have decided to change this longstanding tradition of a fixed salary. At a time when the Government are seeking to increase transparency and accountability, the decision to abandon the existing fixed-salary scheme and transfer the power of decision to an agreement between the Prime Minister and the ombudsman is incomprehensible. Indeed, the decision appears even more arbitrary when we consider that it is being done at a time when the Government are also attempting to limit the pay of public officials.
	The previous fixed-salary scheme ensured that the ombudsman’s pay remained in line with that of equivalent roles. I am concerned that without this there will be no independent influence determining the terms of pay.
	Instead, the remuneration arrangements for the preferred candidate for the post have been negotiated directly between the Government and the candidate for the role of ombudsman, circumventing the necessary scrutiny such a decision requires. The Public Administration Committee, in its report on the ombudsman’s remuneration, has outlined considerable concerns, stating that
	“this is neither a sound nor desirable way to proceed.”
	The report’s conclusion stated that the Committee regretted
	“the Government’s insistence on moving away from the established arrangements and substituting it with an invidious process for determining a remuneration package for the Ombudsman without prior reference to the House.”
	Perhaps more significantly, this direct negotiation places the prospective ombudsman in a position with the Government that impacts on the independence from Government influence that the role requires. The Opposition believe that it is essential that the ombudsman should not find themselves needing to negotiate their salary and any future increases with the Government. The Committee’s report recommended that the Government’s motion should commit the Government and the House to the principle that in future the ombudsman’s remuneration should be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Committee. I am pleased that the Minister’s motion has recognised the Committee’s recommendation. However, the Opposition would wish to go further and recommend that in future the ombudsman’s remuneration be approved by the House in the same way as the candidate is now approved.

Bernard Jenkin: I do not intend to detain the House for long. However, with my colleagues’ permission, I would like to place one or two points on the record. In particular, I would like to join the tributes paid to the existing ombudsman, who has done such a fantastic job over so many years. Ann Abraham has stamped her authority on the office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In particular, she fought a gallant battle over the Equitable Life issue. I am pleased that in the end it was resolved amicably between her and the Government. No one can say that she did not change the course of history on that question, as she has on so many minor issues that are equally important to the people concerned.
	Ann Abraham will continue in office until the end of this year. She gallantly gave notice in good time that she wished to step down to give us time to decide not just to appoint a successor but how to appoint one. Traditionally, under legislation, the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and with reference to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. However, traditionally, the appointment process has been handled entirely by the Cabinet Office. Quite early in the process, the Public Administration Committee made it clear that we thought that this was no longer a process that reflected the present times and that Parliament should be much more at the forefront of this procedure. I am grateful that the Government readily conceded this point and handed the whole process over to the House of Commons.
	I am extremely grateful to those who took part in the appointment process, notably the Principal Clerk of Select Committees, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, Una O’Brien, who was the
	Government nominee on the panel, Professor Alice Brown, who is a former public service ombudsman in Scotland, David Prince, who was the external assessor appointed by the Appointments Commission, and myself. I am pleased to tell the House that we reached a unanimous decision in favour of Dame Julie Mellor. We had a strong field of acceptable candidates from which to choose and many of them were capable of doing the job, but Dame Julie Mellor has an outstanding record of achievement in the public and private sectors.
	In particular, Dame Julie Mellor excelled as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission between 2005 and 2009. I can assure the House that we are fortunate to have her. That judgment was confirmed by the pre-appointment hearing conducted by the PAC on 6 July, which was chaired by a colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). I absented myself as I had served on the panel and therefore had a conflict of interest. I wanted to ensure that the Committee had a free run in making its own judgment about the ombudsman. Again, she received unanimous approval from the PAC, and I am sure that the House will wish her well in her appointment.
	Perhaps the more important issue to raise, however, is the ombudsman’s remuneration. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) pointed out from the Opposition Front Bench, we have slipped into the habit of aligning the ombudsman’s salary with that of a High Court judge, which was appropriate, because, like a High Court judge, the ombudsman has the right to summon persons and papers to resolve the issues before her. However, in the interests of pay restraint, and with the Prime Minister’s salary in mind, the Government have set about trying to re-evaluate the correct salary for quite a large number of public appointments.
	The Committee was, shall I say, distressed that the ombudsman’s salary was caught up in that general process. The difficulty that we had in arguing for the status quo was that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 makes no reference to a High Court judge; rather, it says that the salary should be fixed to that of a permanent secretary. Unfortunately, unlike in 1967, when the legislation was passed, the salary of a permanent secretary is a moveable feast these days. Their salaries extend from a little over—or even a little under—£100,000 to well over £200,000. Fixing the salary to that of a permanent secretary has now become an arbitrary process, although we did not feel it right for the Government simply to take the matter into their own hands. The Government were determined that we should advertise the post with a salary range that we describe in our report on the remuneration as “arbitrary”, and we are distressed that we were left in that position.
	The current ombudsman has been clear that de-linking the ombudsman’s salary from that of a High Court judge leaves the office vulnerable to the charge that it is being downgraded by the Government. The office used to be analogous to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who now earns a significantly higher salary than the ombudsman. At some stage this matter will have to be addressed, but, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the most invidious part of the process is that the ombudsman, having been approved by the
	panel and agreed by the Government in principle, then had to negotiate her salary within the range offered by the Government, which was between £152,000 and £172,753. We did not feel it right that someone who will be responsible for holding the Government to account on behalf of complainants should have to negotiate her remuneration with the very Government whom she should be regulating. Having discussed the matter with one of two others in prominent public positions who had found themselves in the same situation, I can state that the Committee is entirely right to have concluded that this is an entirely unacceptable basis on which to proceed.

Charlie Elphicke: It is a great pleasure to serve on my hon. Friend’s Committee. I would like to hammer home the point that the function of the ombudsman is analogous to that of a High Court judge, in that the ombudsman acts as a large-scale arbiter and provider of justice. As such, it is right and proper that the ombudsman’s salary should be on a level equivalent to that of a High Court judge. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appropriate course is for the Minister to listen to this debate, go away and reconsider the matter?

Bernard Jenkin: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend’s comment, but the Committee concluded that it would be wrong to upset the arrangements that the new ombudsman had negotiated with the Government. To her credit, she did not argue the toss. She simply said, “I want this job, I want to serve Parliament” and decided that, for her, the remuneration was not significant. However, it is instructive to quote what she told the Public Administration Committee during her pre-appointment hearing. On whether it was right to downgrade the job and to negotiate her own salary, she said:
	“I have to say that I do not think it has been a satisfactory process, and I have found myself making the principled argument…around what the criteria should be for determining the pay, and I do not think as an individual I should have been put in that position.”
	The Government, having accepted that principle, are addressing the matter, but I have spoken about this matter with such force because it raises questions about every single public appointment that the Government make, and the independence of the appointments is at stake.
	I am bound to tell the Minister that, on the advice of the Public Appointments Commissioner, we shall return to the way in which public appointments are made in a future inquiry, because we think that the use of the Prime Minister’s salary as an arbitrary benchmark for salaries for positions such as these is neither a scientific nor a reasonable basis for making such appointments.

Robert Halfon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I served on the Committee that interviewed Dame Julie Mellor, and I agree that she gave an outstanding interview. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) acknowledge that she is taking a substantial pay cut to take on the job of ombudsman?

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since Dame Julie ceased to be chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, she has been working in the private sector and earning substantially more than
	she could ever hope to earn in the public sector. For that reason, she felt that she was going to take a pay cut anyway, and the differences that were being argued about were not worth any suggestion of compromising her independence. She has argued, however, that she should never have been left in that position. This also has a lesson for other appointments—particularly, perhaps, that of the chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority. In that instance, with a more limited field of candidates, the Government’s preferred candidate has withdrawn her name, so we shall have to go through a reappointment process. Perhaps if the right salary and conditions had been set at the outset, rather than being arbitrarily cut by the Government, we would not now be facing that situation.
	I wish to be charitable to the Government, however. I thank them for addressing this matter, and they have agreed in principle that these things should be done differently next time. They have agreed that the salaries should be agreed between the Chair of the Public Administration Committee and the Prime Minister before the recruitment process starts, so that when the position is advertised there is no question of the candidate having to arbitrate his or her salary after the appointment has been made.
	In closing, I invite the Minister to recognise that this is the system that is effectively being put in place for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the salary should be agreed between the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government. Should not this also be reflected in the legislation for the ombudsman? The “Open Public Services” White Paper, which was published last week, suggests that the Government will amend the powers of the ombudsman in respect of tendering for public services, and there might well be other changes to the office of the ombudsman in the next year or two, particularly with regard to public access to the ombudsman, which at the moment is not general but is confined to health service complaints. Does the Minister agree that it would be preferable for stability in the salary to be reflected in legislation, to protect the independence of the position in future, rather than relying on horse trading between a Select Committee and the Government, which is how we have to proceed at the moment? I invite the Minister to give us some assurances on those points this evening.

Kevan Jones: I should like to start by agreeing with what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said about the role that Ann Abraham has played as parliamentary ombudsman. As Members of Parliament, many of us will have referred cases relating to the Child Support Agency and tax credits to her. She and her staff have dealt with those cases very efficiently and ensured that those people, who had had awful experiences at the hands of the system, got some redress. I should also like to welcome the appointment of Dame Julie Mellor to the post. She has considerable experience in the public and private sectors, and her enthusiasm for the role was evident during her interview with the Public Administration Committee.
	The Government have not handled the issue of remuneration well. With their spin agenda and attempt to translate sound bites into policy, they do not understand
	one thing about the parliamentary ombudsman. There seems to be a difference between what the sound bite element in the Conservative party comes up with and putting things into practice. They are creating long-term problems for the Government in respect of the parliamentary ombudsman’s position. Her decisions, which will often criticise Departments for their dealings with our constituents, should be independent of the Government and this House.
	It is in our interests as Members of Parliament to ensure that the ombudsman is as independent as possible. However, I do not think it is possible for her to be independent when she has to negotiate her own pay with the Government. I am not suggesting for one moment that Dame Julie Mellor is going to be influenced by money; clearly, as has already been said—by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I believe—she took a pay cut to do the job in question. We hear the rhetoric about being on a par with the Prime Minister’s salary, but no policy decisions have been made on that and no evidence has been provided on why the benchmark for senior positions should be the Prime Minister’s salary.
	Since I have been in the House—the last Labour Government might have been as guilty as this one—independent bodies have been asked to decide on remuneration, but when Governments did not like the outcome, they changed it or argued against it. That might be justifiable when it comes to MPs’ pay, which we put out to an independent body. The first thing the Government did was to stop us taking the increase, which was to be over many years, taking our pay further and further down. There is a big difference between that and the ombudsman, who has to be seen to be independent from the Government. It is not acceptable for the Government or Executive to be able to exert any levers over the ombudsman.
	There is a lot of inconsistency in what has been done. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex raised the issue of the Comptroller and Auditor General—another post that should be independent of the Government—but his salary range goes from £210,000 to £214,999. The point made by the hon. Member for Dover is right: with a link to a High Court judge, it is the independence of the person that counts. Controlling things in the way the Government have done—to be honest, I do not think they have done it intentionally; it is just that the sound bites have got the better of them—shows that they have not thought this through. If we are to have this nonsense whereby the Prime Minister’s pay is the benchmark, I ask the Minister to provide at least some justification of why and how it is formulated.
	It is important to understand the history of the parliamentary ombudsman and the health service ombudsman. The Committee’s report was good both in questioning why things had been changed and in saying that the previous situation, although it had arisen largely as a result of tradition, was at least a justifiable way of determining the individuals’ pay.
	Schedule 1 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 says that where a person holds the office of parliamentary ombudsman and the office of the health service ombudsman, they are entitled to draw a
	“salary pertaining to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner.”
	Section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioners Act 1967 sets out the salary provisions for the parliamentary ombudsman, and section 2(1) states:
	“There shall be paid to the holder of the office of Commissioner the same salary as if he were employed in the civil service of the State in such appointment as the House”
	may resolve from time to time. The Act states that, in the absence of a resolution passed by the House, the salary payable to the ombudsman
	“shall be the same salary as if he were employed…as a Permanent Secretary.”
	Over time, the way in which civil servants are remunerated has changed. The current annual salary of permanent secretaries ranges from £140,000 to £239,999. There is also the bonus culture, of which, as a former trade union official, I am not in favour. To give the impression that civil servants’ pay is being kept down, the basic salary is kept down but bonuses are paid as well. Civil servants may be on the lowest scale of £140,000 a year, but by the time they have received their bonuses—and various other payments—they are earning considerably more.
	The salary of the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service ranges from £235,000 to £239,999. The salary of the chief executive of the national health service ranges from £210,000 to £214,999. The annual salaries of the permanent secretaries of the Departments that are responsible for most complaints to the ombudsman range from £170,000 to £174,99 and from £180,000 to £184,999.
	It will be asked why that matters. I believe that it matters because of the status of the ombudsman herself. That can best be explained by means of an exchange of letters between the present ombudsman, Ann Abraham, and the Prime Minister, which revealed that the current salary was analogous to that of a High Court judge in salary group 4, which is £172,753. As the hon. Member for Dover pointed out, we are asking such people to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I think it important that they not only retain their status but cannot be influenced by Government.
	In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 11 April 2011, Ann Abraham wrote:
	“The existing arrangement provides an objective and effective mechanism for determining the Ombudsman’s salary, and any increases to it. It gives Parliament assurance that an Officer of the House is being appropriately remunerated and it provides clarity and certainty for the Ombudsman. It enables Government to reject out of hand any suggestion that Ministers or officials are applying undue pressure or offering inappropriate rewards to the Ombudsman.”
	She went on to object to the salary bands proposed by the Government.
	I think that it was right to link the ombudsman’s salary with that of a High Court judge, because it meant that the ombudsman, either on appointment or each year, would not interfere with, or have some influence over, his or her pay, and it removed the danger, which may be posed by the salaries of the many civil servants who earn much more than the ombudsman does now, that the person concerned would be influenced by his or her salary level. Continuing to do that would also dispense with the nonsense that if we are not careful—I will say more about this in relation to the motion concerning the increase in the salary of the new occupant of the post—it will be necessary to negotiate every time
	there is a new Government, or if the salary becomes pegged below its present level when the economy becomes buoyant in the next few years and pay restraint is removed.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and valid point, but MPs, too, have to hold to account people who are earning a lot more money than them. Is there not a correlation between that point and the argument he is making?

Kevan Jones: There is—and quite rightly. Because of previous Governments’ and this Government’s pegging of MPs’ pay, many people, even some quite low-level local government workers, are earning considerably more than us. In terms of the process that we are addressing however, it is important that the ombudsman is independent of, and cannot be influenced by, Government. We have a slightly different relationship with the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.
	These measures were all brought in on the basis of pay restraint. A lot has been said about trying to cut senior salaries. I have already mentioned the Auditor General’s pay, and there seems to be some inconsistency across Government about where this restraint should apply. If we are going to make exceptions, I cannot see why things were changed here, as opposed to, say, for Bernard Gray who was appointed Chief of Defence Materiel at the Ministry of Defence by this Government on a salary of £250,000 a year, plus a potential bonus of £30,000. I know that that is a very important job; it delivers equipment to our armed forces. I have no objections to Bernard, either; I know him well, and he is a very fine individual. However, if the decision was taken to break the principle of the Prime Minister’s salary being the ceiling in that case, I do not understand why the Government have intervened in that way in this other case.
	The Prime Minister’s letter of 21 June reveals a lot about the attitude to pay restraint policy. I do not think he has understood the process. What we are doing here is going away from quite a well thought-out system to one that has now brought into doubt whether not only current Ministers and Governments, but others too, could influence these areas in future.

Bernard Jenkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that when he served as a Minister, civil servants received performance-related pay and quite substantial salaries. Indeed, larger salaries were probably offered to public officials than the current Government are offering. I am therefore not quite sure what his complaint is. Does he now recognise that the Government have conceded the principle of what he is arguing in the wording of their motion, in that in future the salary will be agreed between whoever holds my office of Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and whoever is Prime Minister
	“in advance of the recruitment process”
	starting, so there will be stability in the salary at the outset of the recruitment process? I am therefore not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is arguing with the Government about now.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has not won a great victory here, because he has no powers of determination now in respect of the existing salary, unless he is going to be able to go back and negotiate—be the shop steward—on behalf of the ombudsman each year to increase her salary. A mechanism would be better.
	What is the difference between this instance and the cases of other individuals—such as the MOD example that has been given—in terms of the pay restraint policy that the Government are introducing? Another problem is where to start in terms of the salary band. As the motion says, the individual would get an increase, but that will be forgone at the moment.

Bernard Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should have come back to the House of Commons, with the new ombudsman having negotiated and agreed her salary at the current level, demanding that the House of Commons vote for a higher salary than she has agreed? In these straitened times I think that the British public would have found that difficult to understand. Starting from now, we have come up with a much better solution to sort this out for the future without embroiling the new ombudsman in a silly controversy that would have distracted from the seriousness of her office.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is objecting to the arrangement and that he has obtained some kind of victory for the future when he has not. I am sorry to say that what was wrong was the fact that the Government intervened by imposing an arbitrary cap and then saying to the ombudsman, “Sit down and negotiate your pay.” He has obtained something for the future but it is not going to affect the starting salary or the situation now. He is asking whether it would have been wrong for his Committee to have suggested something, but it could have proposed a mechanism that would have possibly increased a larger salary. If it is okay for Bernard Gray at the MOD to be paid £250,000 a year plus bonuses, why are the Government not having consistency across the board? This is a very important job, as it involves independence from the Government and from Parliament, and it is wrong for the Government to be interfering.

Charlie Elphicke: I say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Government there was a lack of ability to check pay and keep it to the correct level. As a matter of policy, it is right, in general, that officials should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the failure and misunderstanding of the policy in this particular case relates to the fact that the ombudsman’s role is akin to that of a High Court judge, and her office means that she should be treated in the same manner as a High Court judge. That is what I hope Ministers will consider, and will perhaps reflect upon and act upon.

Kevan Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he is living in hope if he thinks that any future Government are suddenly going to throw money at individuals once the salary has been set; he is being a bit naive to say the least. He makes an interesting point about the figure of £142,500. The policy is that nobody should earn more than that. Why? Where has that come from? We know where it came from. It came from the soundbite machine at the general election, from this
	Government and from a Prime Minister who does not need the salary in any case, because he has independent wealth. If someone could argue that that was the proper level for the job, that would be fine and I would have no problem with it. However, no evidence is being put forward to support that figure of £142,500. That is an absolute fortune, and most of my constituents could only dream of earning anything like that, even in 10 years, let alone in one year. None the less, I would have more respect for the Government’s approach if there were an evidence base to suggest that that figure was the norm, rather than people plucking it out of thin air and then trying to give an impression that it is the norm and capping the pay of the ombudsman—the one post that it should not have been applied to—while having different arrangements for other positions, such as the MOD example that I gave, and others.
	I opposed bonuses when I was a trade union official, and the hon. Gentleman is right about our approach. The last Government used them all the time; we tried to say that we were keeping civil service pay down but we were paying bonuses instead. I was always against bonuses because they do not accrue in terms of pensionable entitlements. Let us be honest and say that the Government should try to get away from this whole idea.
	The Government have put forward the same argument in respect of local government. The idea that cutting the salary of the chief executive of Durham county council by £5,000 a year or £10,000 a year will actually make a difference in delivering £140 million-worth of cuts over the next three years is completely bonkers. It is nice for the newspapers and it is a nice soundbite at elections, but it does not do the job. What we need in all these situations, as we need in any organisation, is well-thought-out remuneration structures. I am not happy about the cosy relationship between the Chair of the Committee and the Prime Minister in determining the salary of this individual. What the Committee should have proposed are the proper, thought-out, independent salary review processes that we need. As I said before, all Governments try to ignore them when they do not quite fit what they are arguing for, but that is what we need in this case.
	The Government have done the ombudsman a huge disservice by intervening in such a way. I feel sorry that she is now lumbered not only with this salary but with a feeling that she somehow has to negotiate her own salary. The Committee did not pull its punches. It said:
	“We believe that this is neither a sound nor desirable way to proceed.”
	One of the many things about the Government that concern me is the fact that they are completely ignoring processes in devising any type of policy. That leads not only to inconsistencies but to changes that will have an effect, over time, on how the ombudsman service is seen.
	My final point concerns the motion. We will agree a salary of £152,000, which the motion says is
	“within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries”.
	It is and, as I have already demonstrated, it is not. There are some who are on possibly £100,000 more than that and who are eligible, as the ombudsman is not, to receive annual bonuses. The hon. Member for Dover is right. On some occasions in the Ministry of Defence, I could never quite work out which targets some people got bonuses for meeting. Bonuses were used as a way of avoiding giving pay increases.
	The motion says that the salary should be subject to
	“any relevant increase…recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and…after the end of the current…freeze, 1% annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,
	and that the House considers
	“that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner…should be agreed by the Prime Minister”.
	That is fine for the future, but why 1%? What is that figure based on? Trying to do something at the end is not very satisfactory. Although the motion will be passed tonight, the Government have a lot of questions to answer about why they have intervened in such a way.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has spoken in a way that has interested the House. If I say that he has managed to say in 23 minutes what he might have said in three, I hope he will take that as a compliment.
	The essential point of the second motion is that the pay of the parliamentary ombudsman should be set in advance. There is a lack of clarity about whether that will be done before the appointment is advertised. Today, if the motion goes through, I shall be voting for the first time in 36 years for something that I think is seriously wrong. It is wrong to advertise a post and then negotiate with the person who is chosen and reduce the pay after the appointment has been offered. That is wrong. One can understand why the Government might have done it, but that does not make it right. Controlling spending is necessary, but to do it after an appointment has been offered is wrong.
	I could say that many more times, but the fact is that this decision is one thing the House has done that is equivalent to what happened when Elizabeth Filkin was chosen to be the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Her number of days was reduced, her pay was reduced, her appointment should have been renewed because in those days it was not a non-renewable appointment, and in her last week this House agreed to pay her the £30,000 she had been underpaid during her years of service. If I may make a remark about a former holder of the office of Chair, when the former Speaker said in her memoirs that she did not approve of the commissioner or of some action, I thought that was wrong as well.

Bernard Jenkin: I feel compelled to intervene on my hon. Friend because I do not think it is accurate to say that the Government cut the salary after the post had been advertised. They notified the House of Commons that they did not wish to pay as much as the existing salary and the recruitment panel was left in the invidious position of wondering how to advertise the post. The strong advice we received was that we should advertise a fixed salary, but the Government would not allow us to do so. We advertised based on the existing salary, but that was qualified and the candidates were informed during the recruitment process that it was subject to alteration. It was not a satisfactory process, however, so the spirit of what my hon. Friend is saying is absolutely right.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I congratulate him and the Government business managers on finding a motion that could get through the House. The essential point remains however—I think I am right in saying this—that the salary negotiation took place after the person had been chosen, and that is wrong. Although I was not part of the process, I understand that the candidates were strong and that almost any of those who were well-qualified to be chosen could probably have decided to take the job at no pay if it had been advertised at no pay because it is an important position of public service to the people of this country and, indirectly, to improve the government of the country. The essential point is that we should never again start negotiating with someone who has been offered a job in competition by saying, “At what level will you do it?”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) referred to the UK Statistics Authority, whose report was published today. The report rightly says that its aims, with the Office for National Statistics, are respect—I do not think that aim has been met in this case—and working together to make a difference, which is true. Another of its aims is being proud of what has been done and always trying to do it better. In terms of trying to do things better I am not sure that, without a framework, it is correct for the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to decide rates of pay. We need to have a framework and then we can say, “This is what it would appear to be—it should be up or down on that.”
	I ought to have started by saying that I approve of the selection of Dame Julie Mellor and that I would have approved of the selection of any of those on the shortlist because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that any of those who got to the shortlist could have been appointed with honour and distinction. However, let me make a less important point. Motion 9, which is being taken with the lead motion, refers to the rate of pay which is
	“subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay”,
	and it goes on to things we have discussed already. I do not think those conditions are right. We ought to say that the rate of pay for someone holding that office should not change at all, as with Members of Parliament between general elections. We ought to say that although there might be some inflation or even deflation, the rate of pay for someone holding a position that goes from appointment to a point at the end of service, or, as for us, from one general election to another, should remain the same. I do not think that 1% in lieu of performance pay dignifies the office, is necessary or makes sense, but that is not to be amended.

Bernard Jenkin: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this but the problem is the legislation, which allows the salary to be determined only in relation to that of a permanent secretary. That is why I invited my hon. Friend the Minister to give an assurance that we will, at the earliest opportunity I hope, update the legislation.

Peter Bottomley: I shall conclude my remarks by joining in the praise for Ann Abraham and the way she has fulfilled the job, and I look forward with anticipation to Dame Julie Mellor’s doing the same.
	I do not think anyone in the House thinks it was the Minister’s idea to get us to this position, although he might have helped us out of a difficulty. I hope that he will say to ministerial colleagues that it would be better to get my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, and others together to create a framework so that we avoid any possibility of dropping ourselves into such a mess again. I leave aside the fact that Dame Julie Mellor is female and that the House has a record of saying to people, “We’re going to change the terms of the job and a woman will do it.” There are other times when I may be more explicit about such things, but there is an opportunity to say here, with approval for Dame Julie Mellor and disapproval for the way we got ourselves into this fix, that we expect the Government to take on their responsibility and, with others, find a way of resolving it for the future.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly to say some positive things about both Ann Abraham and Dame Julie Mellor. I was a member of the Public Administration Committee for eight years in the previous Parliament and met Ann Abraham on many occasions, saw her at work and interviewed her many times. She was always first class. She was steadfast, highly intelligent, a genuine representative of the people she served, and loyal to Parliament. She sometimes had to take stands on behalf of citizens and of Parliament in the face of the Government, who were sometimes unwilling to accept her recommendations. In the end, she won through with the unanimous support of the Public Administration Committee, which I was pleased about. Ann Abraham has done a tremendous job and I am sure other eulogies will be made when she retires at the end of the year.
	Because the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), was on the appointment committee, I had the privilege of chairing the pre-appointment hearing. That was not just a privilege, but a pleasure. Dame Julie came before us and was subjected to an hour of questioning. Each member of the committee asked several difficult and searching questions and she came through with flying colours. She was absolutely the right person for the job and I compliment the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and his colleagues on recommending her appointment. They have got exactly the right person.
	I am confident that Dame Julie will be a worthy successor to Ann Abraham. It was a pleasure interviewing her. We enjoyed the experience. For her, it may have been something of an ordeal but, as I say, she came through it very well indeed and will be a great success in the post. I add my support for the appointment.

Nick Hurd: There have been sincere tributes from both sides of the House to the work of Ann Abraham, and it is clear that she has made an outstanding contribution. Her legacy will be a valuable and lasting one, not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, in relation to Equitable Life.
	I am delighted that there is such consensus about the qualities of Ann Abraham’s successor. Dame Julie Mellor’s record as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission
	demonstrates that she is able to perform well in a high profile and sometimes controversial role, and is prepared to assert her independence and authority when required— all crucial traits, I am sure we agree, for a successful ombudsman.
	A number of Members have made points about the remuneration arrangements for the role. The Government make no apology for subjecting highly paid public sector roles, particularly those paying more than the Prime Minister’s salary, to a strict policy of scrutiny and pay restraint, and do not believe that this undermines the status and independence of the ombudsman role. As set out in the motion, Dame Julie has agreed to accept an annual salary of £152,000, which will be subject to the current public sector pay freeze. Thereafter, the remuneration will be uprated in line with the text of the motion.

Peter Bottomley: I do not make this as a personal remark. Could my hon. Friend consider, with his colleagues, making a written ministerial statement any time the Government next intend to negotiate the pay after a candidate has been chosen?

Nick Hurd: That leads me on to my next remark. The Government have reviewed the way the process was conducted and have been quick to accept the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation that for future appointments to the role, the remuneration arrangements should be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of that Committee before the start of the recruitment process. This commitment is reflected clearly in the Government’s motion.
	My hon. Friend has raised the possibility of using any legislation coming out of the Government’s recently published open public services White Paper to enshrine these new arrangements in statute. As he knows, the Government’s proposals in relation to the ombudsmen set out in that White Paper are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to know what may be required in terms of legislative reform, but the crucial point is that the Government are committed to these new arrangements going forward and that commitment is clear from the terms of the motion. Subject to the outcome of that debate, should a suitable legislative opportunity arise in the future, the Government will give serious consideration to enshrining the new appointment and remuneration arrangements in statute.

Bernard Jenkin: rose —

Nick Hurd: I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate about this important role. I commend the motions to the House.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be possible for the Chair of the Public Administration Committee to make the point that he was hoping to make?

Mr Speaker: No.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England (Remuneration)

Resolved ,
	That, in the opinion of this House, the salary paid to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be £152,000 a year, a sum within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries in the civil service as required by section 2(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended by the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976; and that this should be subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay; and considers that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be agreed by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee in advance of the recruitment process, and reported to the House, prior to the House being invited to agree to an humble Address on such an appointment.—(Mr Hurd.)

Business without Debate

MEMBERS’ EXPENSES

Ordered,
	That Adam Afriyie, Guto Bebb, Cathy Jamieson, Mr Edward Leigh, Priti Patel, Mr Nick Raynsford, Joan Walley and Stephen Williams be members of the Committee on Members’ Expenses.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

Motion made,
	That Cathy Jamieson be added to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.—( Geoffrey Clifton  Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Hon. Members: Object.

TRANSPORT

Ordered,
	That Gavin Shuker be discharged from the Transport Committee and Graham Stringer be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITIONS

Future of the British Train Building Industry

Chris Williamson: Mr Speaker, you will probably be aware from press reports that the British train building industry hangs in the balance because of a Government proposal to build trains in Germany for the Thameslink rolling stock programme, rather than at Bombardier in Derby. Feeling in the city is running extremely high. I have secured more than 50,000 signatures for the petition, calling on the Government to look again at the proposal to award the contract to Siemens in Germany, not least because the Prime Minister visited Derby only three and a half months ago and said that he was committed to rebalancing the economy in favour of the manufacturing industry. The citizens of
	Derby are hoping that he and the Government will take the same course of action that we saw in 1971 when Rolls-Royce went bust and the Government at the time did the right thing.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom,
	Declares that they are concerned about the future of the British train building industry. Their concern is a consequence of the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the new fleet of trains for the Thameslink Programme. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to reverse this decision.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000941]

Consultation on Electricity Transmission in Somerset

Tessa Munt: I rise to present a petition from the residents of Wells and others who are concerned about the standard of National Grid’s consultation relating to 152-feet high pylons that are proposed to go across the Somerset levels, which would spoil beyond belief the Somerset countryside and damage incredibly the tourism on which most of Somerset is dependent. The people of Wells and others have asked that National Grid consider a choice of various forms so that they can see the cost and other factors that are involved in using alternatives to pylons and overhead lines—in particular, that it should consider undergrounding using an under-sea route through the Bristol channel or a version alongside the M5 corridor. The petition includes the signatures of over 1,500 residents of Wells and the surrounding area.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Wells and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe National Grid’s consultation on proposals to erect 152 ft high pylons is flawed; that the proposal would blight the beautiful unspoiled Somerset countryside; and further declares that the Petitioners accept that electricity transmission is essential but the Petitioners are concerned that National Grid is offering consultees a choice between two unacceptable routes, chosen by National Grid solely on the basis of cost, to the exclusion of other viable options such as undergrounding, under the Bristol Channel or along the M5 corridor.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage National Grid to stop the current consultation into electricity transmission in Somerset and consider other viable options.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000943]

Licensing of Mobile Home Parks

Nicky Morgan: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Palma park homes in Loughborough that has been signed by 284 people. The House will be aware of concerns that have been expressed by Members of Parliament in all parts of the House about the way in which many park homes are managed. Such homes are often occupied by older and more vulnerable people. In Loughborough—I know that this experience is shared in park homes across the country—there are high maintenance and management charges and difficulties in selling these
	homes. At Palma park we have also recently had alleged incidents of violence between the former owner and the current owner of the park.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Palma Park Homes, Loughborough, Leicestershire
	Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the standards of conduct exhibited by the owner of Palma Park Homes.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a fair, clear and simple licensing system for those owning mobile home parks, so that licence holders must show that they are fit and proper persons to hold such a licence, and that any regulations or legislation should set out how a licence may be revoked if a licence holder is found by the local authority to no longer meet the fit and proper criteria.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000945]

ELECTION PETITIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

John Mann: I rise to introduce this Adjournment debate on an issue that should be, and I think will be, of interest to all Members of the House—perhaps unexpectedly and by surprise in future years if the law is not changed. I declare not an interest, but a long-standing personal friendship with one of the individuals to whom I shall refer—Mr Phil Woolas, the former Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who is nowadays something of an expert on election petitions and their impact.
	There has been a long history of election petitions over the past 400 years, but since 1604 there has not been much change in this respect in Parliament and therefore in this country. There has been a fundamental weakness in how the law has been consolidated in 1983 and since then. As is well recognised, the Electoral Commission has been privy to cross-party discussions—one could even call them negotiations—on such matters. In a helpful advice note, the commission said of the legal basis for challenging the result of an election:
	“There was broad support for a review of the current legal basis for challenging the results of an election. The general”—
	cross-party—
	“consensus was that the process was antiquated, not user-friendly and that reform of the process was needed.”
	Similarly, on the rather minor issue of the correction of procedural errors, it states:
	“If the Returning Officer concludes that the wrong person was declared ‘duly’ elected because of a procedural mistake, he or she currently has no powers to correct the error beyond advising the affected candidate to lodge an election petition.”
	That is clearly nonsense and an anomaly that needs to be rectified in law.
	Petitions on minor but important issues that do not affect the result do not occur. In essence, those issues disappear. One cannot challenge a precise wrong within the process without a full election petition. We should have a system that allows candidates or third parties to point to errors that do not affect the outcome without involving the principle or requiring the potential expense of attempting to remove an elected Member. Any candidate or third party with a rational interest should have the power to point to something that has been done that is anomalous, wrong or mistaken, such as errors that are made in the process by a local authority or a returning officer. The inability to do so in the current system, other than by an exchange of correspondence, is a weakness that undermines our system of democracy.
	We now get on to the much bigger issue of costs and surety. Given the nature of political argument and the often heated debates within election campaigns, it needs to be difficult for losing candidates to put in petitions that could be deemed frivolous. If it is too easy to put in an election petition and every candidate puts one in, perhaps because they have lost by a few votes and are looking for an excuse to overturn the result, it clearly does not suit Parliament and democracy. That must be balanced against the potential risks of costs should one put in a petition. It should not be only those with significant wealth who might be able to meet adverse
	costs who should feel confident about putting in an election petition if there is a wrong that requires righting. There is an imbalance within the process that needs to be rebalanced. We must allow genuine petitions to go forward without encouraging reckless or frivolous petitions that are not genuine, and the ability to take forward a petition must not rely on finance.
	The problem of costs was compounded recently by a case involving local election petitions in Slough. This is not a party political point, so I will not even mention the parties involved. The key issue is the principle. One of the major parties ended up with a councillor in prison. The other party, which brought the case, sought to have its costs awarded when it won the case. However, the party whose councillor was in prison dropped the candidate. It was up to the party that won in court potentially to bankrupt the individual. Clearly there needs to be a better system than that. I put it to the Minister that what is needed is a provision to allow election courts a wider remit in awarding costs and in deciding who should meet them. In particular, if a party defends the case, or aids and abets the defence, there should be the possibility of costs in part or whole being awarded against that party rather than necessarily against the individual. I do not think the continuation of the Slough example will serve any of the political parties in this country in future.
	A case that, perhaps remarkably, has not been discussed in the House before is that of Mr Phil Woolas, who was a Member of the House and was elected at the last general election. I think it is reasonably fair to say that he was a widely respected Member on both sides of the House. Of course, he is no longer a Member, and indeed he cannot stand in any election for three years. I am not questioning the judgment that was made; I am questioning the process and its weaknesses and inflexibility. I think it will be helpful if I quote part of the conclusion of the judgment made by the two judges who sat on the election court. They stated:
	“In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.
	It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.
	Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.”
	One of the anomalies in the current law is the question of what is “personal character and conduct”. The previous time there was an electoral petition on the matter was the North Louth case in 1911. However, unless the law is changed, there is a danger in the era of the modern media that because one such case has been taken, many such cases could be taken. From looking at the publicity and propaganda that there have been, I think it is factually accurate to say that there have been worse in recent elections from all three main parties than in the case of Mr Woolas, and the candidates in question have won. Indeed, there is a significant question of how we determine the facts of a case. Others have raised that matter, and it was part of the appeal that was attempted. However, before I come to it, there is a point that has never been raised that I will raise for the first time.
	I am aware that the leaflets that caused offence were not written by Mr Woolas. He never made great play of the fact that he did not write them, but I put it to the House that less honourable politicians may well have used that as a basis of defence, although not necessarily successfully. They might have said that somebody else wrote the publicity. The question is where the sanctions should be applied. Should they be solely applied to the candidate?

Tessa Munt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Mann: No.
	Clearly the candidate needs to take responsibility for their publicity, but the reason that question rings so true to me is that in 1997, I was sent by the Labour party to oversee the last five days of the campaign in Oldham East and Saddleworth of Mr Phil Woolas. I wrote the leaflets in the last five days, and Mr Woolas, as a good candidate, was not consulted on them at any stage.
	In the parlance of the Labour party agents—it is no different among the other major parties—candidates have been known for decades as “LNs”—legal necessities. My leaflets were beyond reproach, but if they had not been, who would have been responsible? Would it have been the writer of the leaflets, the legal agent appointed by the candidate, or the candidate? It seems to me that some flexibility of sanctions is needed in the law, to take that question into account. The matter could be further complicated, of course, if leaflets were put out jointly with local election candidates, potentially involving two agents and different candidates.
	It seems to me that there is a fundamental weakness in the law. In essence, the question available to the election court, as demonstrated in the case of Mr Woolas, is yes or no, guilty or not guilty. If guilty, the sanction must be the ultimate one of striking out. No other option was available in Mr Woolas’s case. There was no option of looking to see whether the leaflets influenced the campaign. Therefore, a leaflet that is written but never distributed—a copy could be obtained—could be used to overturn an election result.
	There is a second principle: there is no right of appeal—the press coverage at the time of Mr Woolas’s case perhaps confused that. The Fiona Jones case in 1999 was a criminal prosecution. Because of that, she successfully appealed and was reinstated as a Member of Parliament. In the civil case against Mr Woolas, no appeal was possible, as was recognised when he attempted a judicial review, and therefore it was not possible to look at the statements of fact as determined by the election court judges. Natural justice in any other place dictates that there should be an appeal. A murderer of the worst kind has a right of appeal, and yet a parliamentarian who has lost his seat because of an election court ruling—as others could—does not. That anomaly needs to be changed. It was changed in relation to criminal cases because of the Fiona Jones case, but it was left out of the 1983 consolidation Act.
	It is essential that the Government move quickly to change that before lots of similar cases are brought to attempt to change results. I put it to the House that in the internet era, there is a greater possibility of more cases being brought, because there are more outlets for things being stated as part of a campaign. The candidate—
	rightly and honourably—must accept ownership of those things, but he might not have direct control of them during the campaign. I put it to the Minister that we are all at risk.
	My final point to the Minister is a separate one that relates to my election. I estimate that a wealthy benefactor in the other place, Lord Ashcroft, put in £250,000 to try to win my seat in the election, and he did so quite legally. Many photographs of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, were sent by direct mail. One household received 29 direct mails, and mine received six. It was a waste of money—it may have increased my vote—but there is an unfairness in the system. If I had £250,000 to spend, I think I could increase my majority.
	That also needs to be looked at. A review of fairness, honesty and integrity in elections is imperative—a review that does not excuse certain behaviour or give candidates of any party anywhere to run; and that allows honourable, fair and just campaigns and outcomes; but which leaves fair, just and reasonable remedies for those who wish to challenge them. The internet, e-mail, texting and Twitter age dictates that the Government must introduce legislation to change the foundation of electoral law in the UK, which is described by Roger Morris and David Monks, in “Running Elections 2003”, as
	“Victorian in construction and tone”.
	We need to modernise, and for all our sakes, we need to do so quickly.

Mark Harper: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. It is not the first time we have heard from him this evening, but no less the worse for that.
	The Government want to improve public confidence in all aspects of our electoral system. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it is important that the conduct of all elections to this House, and to local authorities and the European Parliament, are beyond reproach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we want elections to be decided through the ballot box and not in the courts, but some remedies should be available to deal with cases of corrupt or illegal practices by candidates or agents. There should be clear and robust mechanisms for challenging the results of elections, and he is right to say that they should include appropriate, proportionate and accessible safeguards. The Government’s view is that that is the case under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several issues of cost, including the overall cost, and made a specific point about a court’s ability to apportion costs. My understanding is that courts have a wide discretion under section 154 of the Act to apportion costs. He raised a specific case that I will endeavour to look at after the debate and consider what he said in the light of it.
	The hon. Gentleman also made a point about proportionality. Although there may be technical reasons why a returning officer may have declared a particular result, revoking the election of somebody is a significant step and should not be done lightly. Although the hon. Gentleman suggested cases in which it might be considered only an administrative matter, if we think a little more
	about it we realise that those of us who have been elected would not want our elections to be overturned by some relatively straightforward process. It should be difficult to overturn an election, and we need to strike a balance in the level of proportionality.
	Notwithstanding the relatively recent case of Phil Woolas, it is also worth saying that the election petition device—certainly for parliamentary elections—is rare. There have only been seven petitions issued against the results of UK parliamentary elections since 1997, and only two of those have been successful. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that it would not be healthy if we had regular challenges.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. The High Court in the Woolas case confirmed that section 144 of the 1983 Act said that decisions of the electoral courts were final insofar as matters of fact were concerned. The hon. Gentleman was right about that, but I do not agree that that was a misconsolidation of the 1983 Act. If he goes back to the 1868 Act—I will not go as far back as the 400 years that he suggested—he will see that it was also clear that matters of fact were final decisions that the election court could take. In the Woolas case, the High Court made it clear that the decisions about the application of the law were judicially reviewable—

John Mann: The anomaly is that for a criminal case the law has been changed and allows an appeal, as the Fiona Jones case demonstrated. In a civil case, no appeal is allowed, and that surely is neither rational nor fair.

Mark Harper: I shall come on to that point in a moment. I just wished to make the distinction clear between matters of fact and the application of the law, which—to be fair—the hon. Gentleman did. The High Court made it clear that it was possible for judicial review of how the election court had applied the law.
	On the basis of that decision, I do not think that the law needs to be changed to clarify the decision that matters of law can be appealed, although there was confusion in the reports of the case about whether Phil Woolas was appealing or requesting judicial review.
	It is for Members to weigh up the issues, taking into account the hon. Gentleman’s point that we never know when we might be the subject of one these petitions. However, we must balance against that the need for a level of speed in the process. When Phil Woolas sought a judicial review, the High Court concluded on the justification for finality on fact:
	“Election petitions must be determined with urgency. Finality in the determination is of great importance for not only must the electors have a representative in Parliament, but in times when majorities are small, the absence of a Member can be significant.”
	A balance needs to be struck in this process between getting the right decision and getting it quite speedily. He raised several points about that matter. The Government keep it under review, but at the moment we are not persuaded by his arguments.
	At the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman raised a more general issue about party funding. He will know that the coalition Government have made a commitment to deal with party funding—hopefully, on a consensual basis. We are waiting for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to publish its report. The Committee might make proposals that we can take as a basis for
	conversations between the parties and that might deal with some of the issues he has raised. He also made a point about the danger of political arguments being used to try to overturn elections. I think that the High Court made clear the distinction between false statements of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct and their political or public position—a statement had to be one or the other, but could not be both. Members when approving literature and others when thinking about challenging us should bear it in mind that it is not about running off to court every time someone says something about someone’s political position.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about things that get authorised by us. The legislation makes it clear that candidates should be liable to have their election voided only if they or their election agents—not lots of other people, but specifically they or their election agents—have
	authorised or consented to those illegal practices. That should ensure that election candidates and their election agents are careful about what they authorise and approve the spending of money on. They should perhaps be careful not to delegate that responsibility to others. It is not the case that anybody involved in a campaign can put out pieces of paper—if they are not approved by the candidate or election agent, they cannot lead to what happened in the case of Mr Woolas.
	In conclusion, the Government agree that there should be proportionate and accessible procedures for challenging elections. We will keep the current position under review, and I will consider the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, particularly on costs, and come back to him one way or the other.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.